“Weight of Consensus”

A manuscript/volume of manuscripts which is held consistently by a community to have been written by a particular author/authors, is not anonymous purely from the fact that it is copied without the author’s name. Religious texts are always in a class of their own, because there is a huge reverence attached to them, which means that a human author might want to refrain from writing “by Mark”, or “By Luke” at the end, or in the beginning, knowing that it really was “by God”. There is no primary religious text we know to bear an author’s imprint in this manner from other faiths and that would be the reason. So at the very outset, the argument is quite nuanced. The author’s name would only be needed to be added, were there manuscripts of other authors also covering the same primary material.

The entire community is the link between the present day reader and the original author and the quality of the link is related to the quality of the consensus as well as of the documentation itself. Thus the stronger the consensus, the  greater the validation, as also the more significant the disagreements within the community the weaker the validation. We will see that in the case of the New Testament manuscripts there are literally no dissenting voices when it comes to the question of authorship of the Gospels, only agreement. In this sense this is not a negative proof or a “proof from silence”, all the evidence is in favour of the authenticity of the Gospels.

Who are the persons providing this attestation? We will see that the documents that have survived are those of the Early Church Fathers themselves. How were the documents distributed? St Paul himself speaks of appointing elders, bishops, presbyters in the churches and these persons in authority would have been responsible for the caretaking of the manuscripts, and they are real persons that are given charge of the parishes. A community will worship with the liturgical books that they hold to be valid. Christians have always worshipped a certain way, and the proof of that worship once again is in the early Church Fathers’ writings.

The Earliest Manuscripts

These are the earliest New Testament manuscripts:

Second Century

1. P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.⁴   This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of  manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt
2. Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.⁵ This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size.
3. Papyrus P98 (P. IFAO inv. 237b [+a]) is a manuscript fragment that contains verses from the first chapter of the book of Revelation.  It was copied circa A.D. 100-200, likely in Egypt.
4. Papyrus 52: The earliest and most famous Greek New Testament manuscript is the Ryland Papyrus P52, currently on display at the John Rylands University Library in Manchester, UK. most scholars today would use a wider date range of the second century in general.  P52 comes from a codex (ie. book form, not a scroll) and contains parts of seven lines from the John 18:31–33 on the front, and parts of seven lines from verses 37–38 on the back.

2^nd or 3^rd Century:

1. P32 – Book of Titus
2. P46- Probably the earliest in this list. Contains Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews
3. P66- John.
4. P75
5. P77- Matthew
6. P103- Matthew
7. Majuscule GA0189- Acts of the Apostles

Documentation of authorship

Perhaps many do not realise, that every extant New Testament document that has the cover page, also has the autograph of its author with no inconsistencies between manuscripts. To examine this we can examine the work of Dr. Brant Pitre (also drawing from Simon Gathercole’s work). This consistency in ascribing Gospel authorship is such that it is seen in all the regions of the Roman empire, from Egypt in Africa to distant Georgia and Armenia. There is only one letter, that to the Hebrews (and to a lesser extent book of Revelations and the 2^nd and 3^rd letters of John) whose authorship is not clear and this is made quite obvious, there is no cover-up, and the uncertainty gets discussed openly which are great counter-examples. As Pitre discusses convincingly, it cannot be conceived that titles with genuinely anonymous authorship that had been copied and recopied could have a consistency in the ascribed authorship in all the extant manuscripts found from a century later, not just for one but for all four of the Gospels. The text is in widespread use in several languages in the early Church Further as Pitre states, if authority was sought to be ascribed through false authorship, it would have been more natural to ascribe it to one of the twelve as is the case of spurious gospels. These spurious gospels were universally rejected in spite of claiming apostolic authorship! This just strengthens the case for the effectiveness of community consensus as a lutmus test.

Pitre states that “the titles are present in the most ancient copies of each Gospel we possess, including the earliest fragments, known as papyri (from the papyrus leaves of which they were made). For example, the earliest Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew contains the title “The Gospel according to Matthew” (Greek euangelion kata Matthaion) (Papyrus 4). Likewise, the oldest Greek copy of the beginning of the Gospel of Mark starts with the title “The Gospel according to Mark” (Greek euangelion Along similar lines, the oldest known copy of the Gospel of Luke begins with the words “The Gospel according to Luke” (Greek euangelion kata Loukan) (Papyrus 75). Finally, the earliest manuscript of the Gospel of John that exists is only a tiny fragment of the Gospel. Fortunately, however, the first page is preserved, and it reads: “The Gospel according to John” (Greek euangelion kata Iōannēn) (Papyrus 66).”

He further cites New Testament scholar Martin Hengel writes: “Let those who deny the great age and therefore the basic originality of the Gospel superscriptions in order to preserve their “good” critical conscience give a better explanation of the completely unanimous and relatively early attestation of these titles, their origin and the names of the authors associated with them. Such an explanation has yet to be given, and it never will be.”

Pitre continues powerfully: “The second major problem with the theory of the anonymous Gospels is the utter  implausibility that a book circulating around the Roman Empire without a title for almost a hundred years could somehow at some point be attributed to exactly the same author by scribes throughout the world and yet leave no trace of disagreement in any manuscripts. And, by the way, this is supposed to have happened not just once, but with each one of the four Gospels…How did these unknown scribes who added the titles know whom to ascribe the books to? How did they communicate with one another so that all the copies ended up with the same titles?… In the words of Graham Stanton: “As soon as Christian communities regularly used more than one written account of the actions and teaching of Jesus, it would have been necessary to distinguish them by some form of title, especially in the context of readings at worship.”…we know from the Gospel of Luke that “many” accounts of the life of Jesus were already in circulation by the time he wrote (see Luke 1:1-4). So to suggest that no titles whatsoever were added to the Gospels until the late second century AD completely fails to take into account the fact that multiple Gospels were already circulating before Luke ever set pen to papyrus, and that there would be a practical need to identify these books.

It is also equally not necessary to presume that until the time of writing by the specific evangelists, the Gospels were merely transmitted orally, there were already efforts being made to documents the events, as St Luke indicates: “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” (Luke1:1-4) (Brant Pitre’s “the Case for Jesus- the Biblical and historical Evidence for Christ”)

Who was Mark?

The letters of Paul identify Mark as a “man of the circumcision” (meaning he was Jewish) and a cousin of Barnabas, Paul’s fellow missionary (Colossians 4:10-11). These letters also tell us that Mark stayed with Paul during one of his periods of imprisonment, probably in Rome (Philemon 23-24; 2 Timothy 4:11). Along similar lines, the Acts of the Apostles tells us that Mark’s full name was “John Mark”; that his mother, Mary, lived in Jerusalem; and that he travelled with Barnabas and Paul (see Acts 12:12-14, 25). Perhaps the most interesting story about Mark is the account of a falling-out between him and the apostle Paul:

“And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. (Acts 15:36-40) Apparently, even apostles can get into a scuffle or two every now and then! As this story clearly shows, John Mark was a real person, well known in the early Church, both among Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and among some of the churches associated with Paul.

Finally, and perhaps most significant, there is evidence that not only did Mark travel with Paul and Barnabas, but he was also with the apostle Peter during Peter’s time in the city of Rome. This evidence comes from the first letter of Peter, which ends by referring to the pagan city of Rome in early Christian code as “Babylon”:

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it. She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. (1 Peter 5:12-13)

(taken from Brant Pitre’s “the Case for Jesus- the Biblical and historical Evidence for Christ”)

Who’s Luke?

“With him [Titus] we are sending the brother who is famous in the Gospel among all the churches; and not only that, but he has been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work which we are carrying on, for the glory of the Lord and to show our good will.” (2 Corinthians 8:18-19). Although many English Bibles translate this line as “famous  among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel,” the original Greek is actually a noun: “famous in the gospel” (Greek en tō euangeliō). Origen, a native Greek speaker, interpreted these words of Paul as a reference to the written Gospel that made Luke famous in all the churches in which his book had circulated (Eusebius, Church History 6.25.3, 6). For what it’s worth, in the late fourth century AD, Saint Jerome interpreted Paul’s words in the same way:

Luke, a physician from Antioch, indicated in his writings that he knew Greek and that he was a  follower of the apostle Paul and the companion of all his journeying; he wrote a gospel about which the same Paul says, “We have sent with him a brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” (2 Corinthians 8:18). (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 7- Translated in Orchard and Riley, The Order of the Synoptics, 203)

(taken from Brant Pitre’s “the Case for Jesus- the Biblical and historical Evidence for Christ”)

How could “Uneducated” Aramaic Speakers write Greek Gospels?

How could the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, have written a Gospel if he was “just a fisherman from Galilee”, same for the other evangelists who were “uneducated and ordinary men” (Acts 4:13)?

Several points need to be kept in mind. For one thing, nobody is actually claiming that a fisherman wrote the Gospel. What the title is claiming is that the Gospel was authored by an ex-fisherman who first became a student of arguably the most influential Jewish rabbi in history (meaning Jesus) and, an apostle and evangelist. Indeed, if the Gospel of John was written toward the end of his life (…), then he would have had some five or six decades of practice preaching and teaching about Jesus in Judea and the Greek diaspora before ever setting down a single word. Moreover, according to the evidence, John’s father, Zebedee, was wealthy enough to pay “hired servants” to help with the fishing business:

“And going on a little farther, [Jesus] saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.” (Mark 1:19-20)

At the very least, this description suggests that John’s family was relatively well off, what one scholar describes as “middle class status.” (…) Moreover, although the apostle John is certainly described as “uneducated” (Acts 4:13), this may not mean that he was completely unable to read and write (…)

In light of this context, some scholars suggest that the Greek word usually translated as “illiterate” (agrammatos) is being used here in a broader sense to indicate Peter and John’s “lack of formal education.” Should there be any doubt about this, it is crucial to note that the first-century Greek writer Epictetus actually speaks about a man “writing in an illiterate way” (Greek graphein agrammatōs) (Discourses, 2.9.10). In other words, the description of Peter and John may simply refer to their lack of formal scribal literacy of the kind possessed by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

Third and finally, even if Acts is describing John as unable to read and write, he still could have authored the Gospel attributed to him by using the common first-century (and twenty-first-century) custom of dictating to a secretary. For example, e ven the apostle Paul, who was certainly literate, dictated the letter to the Romans to the scribe Tertius (Romans 16:22). Many other examples could be given showing the use of both secretaries (1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11-18) and co-authors (1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; Philemon 1:1).

Pitre also quotes: “By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it. She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. (1 Peter 5:12-13). Notice here that Peter appears to be using a scribe named Silvanus to write his Letter”

And Ehrman himself admits that being a tax collector in the ancient world involved some reading and writing: Throughout most of antiquity, since most people could not write, there were local “readers” and “writers” who hired out their services to people who needed to conduct business that required written texts: tax receipts, legal contracts, licenses, personal letters, and the like. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 38)  If this is true, then in all likelihood a tax collector in “Galilee of the Gentiles” would have been literate, and would probably even have had to know how to write in Greek, the primary language of commerce at the time. (see Michael W. Graves, “Languages of Palestine,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B.Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 484–92 (here 486); Stanley E. Porter, “The Language(s) Jesus Spoke,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 3.2455–71.)

(Everything in this section taken from Brant Pitre’s “the Case for Jesus- the Biblical and historical Evidence for Christ”)

Is there Evidence for Early Manuscripts which do not bear the Name of the Author?

We see here P1, which is the first page of Matthew begin directly with the first line of the text “biblos geneseos…” (the book of the genealogy…”). There is no obvious “empty space” at the top where the title would have been written, so as to give room for any conspiracy claim that the book was originally ascribed to a different author which portion from the beginning of the gospel was subsequently erased or lost. It is written in the manner of a text the author of which is taken for granted because it is widely known, else the title is elsewhere in the book, on a separate cover page, or even at the end of the book, as we have already seen in the case of p75.

Early Church Fathers’ Witness

Tatian

The Diatesseron ascribed to Tatian is a Gospel harmony composed in the 2nd cent.; the first known Gospel translation into Syriac. The title is Greek, meaning ‘through [the] four [Gospels]’. In the Syriac world it was known either by its transliterated Greek name (diyaṭessaron) or as the ewangeliyon da-mḥallṭe (‘Gospel of the mixed’, as contrasted with the ewangeliyon da-mparrše, ‘Gospel of the separated’). The Diatessaron occupied a preeminent position in the Syrian Church in the first four centuries. Thus the name contains the attestation to the four Gospels.

“Tatian composed a kind of combination and collection of the gospels. I know not how, to which he gave the name Diatesseron, and this is in circulation even today among some…” (Eusebius of Caesaria, Ecclediastical history Bk4, Ch29) 

Thus we see even from the title of this book, that at an early stage, it was quite taken for granted in the wider Church that there were indeed, four Gospels.

Papias

Papias lived from 70AD to 163AD, was a disciple of the Apostle John, and Bishop of Hierapolis (located in modern Turkey)

“Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could. (Papias of Hierapolis-  (as quoted by Eusebius in his book Ecclesiastical History (340AD) 3.39.16)

“Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.” (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 3.39.15)

Irenaeus of Lyons

lived from 130AD to 202AD. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. And he became a Bishop in Gaul (modern France).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 5.8.2)

“…it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”-an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated.

For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; ” and also, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into heavenly kingdom.

“But Polycarp was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried (on Earth) a very long time, and when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffered martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned form the apostles, and which the Church had handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as also do those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time”  (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Bk.3, Ch.3)

Luke also, who was a follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel which was preached by him.(Irenaeus of Lyons, cited by Eusebius, Church History, 5.8.3)

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men…. According to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh…. Therefore the Lord’s disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” [John 1:14]. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.1–2)

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to

them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine…. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.7)

Then [after the publication of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke] John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus of Lyons Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 5.8)

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria lived from 150AD to 215AD, and was a disciple of Pantaenus. Here is what he wrote about the gospels (as quoted by Eusebius in his book Ecclesiastical History (340AD)):

“Again in the same books Clement had set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed under the following circumstances- As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.  And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.  When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.  But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”(recorded by Eusebius of Caesaria, Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 6 Ch.14)

But a great light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter’s listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations, they begged Mark (whose gospel is extant), since he was Peter’s follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the scripture called “The Gospel according to Mark.” And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches.

(Clement of Alexandria Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 2.15.1–2)

“John, it is said, used all the time a message which was not written down, and at last took to writing for the following cause. The three gospels which had been written down before were distributed to all including himself; it is said he welcomed them and testified to their truth but said that there was only lacking to the narrative the account of what was done by Christ at first and at the beginning of the preaching…. They say accordingly that John was asked to relate in his own gospel the period passed over in silence by the former evangelists.” (Translated in Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 305–7)

“Of all those who had been with the Lord only Matthew and John left us their recollections

(hypomnēmata), and tradition says that they took to writing perforce….  Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.” (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 3.24.5–6)

Also interesting is that around the year 180, Tertullian mentioned that several of the original documents were still around in his time. Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome. And in the early 4th century, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks of the original document of the Gospel of John still existing in his day

 Tertullian

Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man…not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master—at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle [Paul] whom he followed…was subsequent to the others…. Even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. (Tertullian

of Carthage, Against Marcion 4.2.5. Translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 12 vols)

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors to whom was assigned by the Lord himself this office of publishing the gospel…. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. (Tertullian of Carthage- Against Marcion Bk.4, Ch.2) Tertullian,trans. ANF (ibid), 3.347)

The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage- I mean the Gospel of John and Matthew- while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul- Against Marcion Bk.4, Ch.5)

Origen

Among the four Gospels which are the only undisputable ones in the Church of God under Heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ. And it was prepared for the converts for Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.  The second was by Mark who composed it according to the instructions of Peter…And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe] the Gospel that was praised by Paul. Last of all that by John (Cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6.25.4)

Muratorian Fragment

The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (Muratorian Fragment, Rome Lines 2–8 translated by Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 305–6.)

The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, “Fast with me today for three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.” In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. (Muratorian Canon of Rome, nos. 9–16 Translated in Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 305–7.

What Opponents said – Celsus

Origen points out that pagan critics like Celsus will not go so far as to deny the fact that “Jesus’s own pupils and hearers” left behind “their reminiscences of Jesus in writing” (Origen, Against Celsus, 2.13)

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to

them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine…. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.7)

Now, Irenaeus tells us that the various sects tended to pick one of the four Gospels: for example, the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew; the Marcionites used only a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke; others (who appear to be Gnostics) used only the Gospel of Mark; and the Valentinians used only the Gospel of John. But all of the early heretical groups seem to take for granted the apostolic authorship of the four Gospels. For the first three centuries of the Church, the authorship of the Gospels was apparently not a topic of debate.

pagan writer Celsus, who lived in the late second century AD. Celsus was one of the fiercest enemies and critics of Christianity in the early Church, and he devoted a substantial portion of his time to attacking it. This is what he has to say about the authorship of the Gospels:

The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he

foreknew everything before it happened…. The disciples of Jesus wrote such accounts regarding

him, by way of extenuating the charges that told against him. (Celsus, Against the Christians)

(taken from Brant Pitre’s “the Case for Jesus- the Biblical and historical Evidence for Christ”)