As previously mentioned, there was a strong presumption throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries that the Gospels, at least in their final form were produced significantly after the events they purported to report. Dates were suggested going well into the 2nd Century A.D and even conservative estimates suggested that the Gospels originated from at the earliest, the very late stages of the first century and into the early second century. If that were the case, then it would mean that the authors were not the men that had traditionally been identified with the Gospels, although it was possible that they may have been associated with written sources and oral tradition.
The presumption was that the final form gospels were put together by unknown editors relying on sources and then on each other. Mark’s Gospel was seen as likely to have been the earliest Gospel. This is because much of the material we find in Mark is also in Luke and John, with those Gospels including additional material, especially teaching from Jesus that has been associated with a hypothetical sayings source known as Q. This suggests that Matthew and Luke show some dependency on Mark as one of their sources.
There is good reason to reject those late datings of the Gospels, ot least the way in which they interact with significant historical events such as the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem in AD70. There are passages which seem to look forward prophetically to those events but there is no suggestion that the authors are aware of them having been fulfilled. It is important to note that AD70 is soon enough to have been within the lifetime of the disciples and so there was no need for pseudepigraphal authors to fain ignorance of the prophecies being fulfilled.
Additionally, it was important to be able to identify books by their tittles in order to enable distribution and so it was important that the early church were able to distinguish between authors of different Gospels from an early date. If the original Gospels had been anonymous, we would expect there to be speculation about alternative authorship (as there is for example with the book of Hebrews), However, from a very early stage the four Gospels were known by their attributed authors.[1]
So, we can assume that the authors are those named in the titles. This may still leave some discussion about who the specific authors were. There has been some debate over the years as to whether John, the Elder, identified with the later epistles and book of Revelation is the same person as the author of the Gospel and if so whether or not he was the apostle or a different John. I don’t think there is good reason to depart from the presumption that the Gospel, letters and Revelation were written by John, one of the twelve disciples and that he is the one identified as “the beloved” disciple.
Similarly, we can identify Matthew with the tax-collector, also known as Levi who became one of Jesus’ followers. Mark is perhaps trickier to identify, though he has traditionally been identified with “John Mark, Paul and then Barnabas’ missionary companion. Again, there is little if any reason to doubt this.
Luke is mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and this is where he is identified as a physician. He was a travelling companion of Paul, hence as you read through Acts, you can determine the point at which he joins the team because he shifts from writing in the second person (he/they) to the first person (we).
It is generally presumed that Luke was a Gentile convert and writing for gentiles who would not be so familiar with the customs, practices and language of Palestinian Judaism. There are clues to this intent in the Gospel. He has a Greek/Gentile name so that makes it possible that he was a Gentile, although, he may have been a Hellenistic Jew and some of the disciples such as Andrew had gentile names despite being definitely Jewish.[2]
[1] See Carson, Moo & Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids MI.: Apollos, 1992), 66.
[2] Wilcock, The Message of Luke, 16-17.
Faithroots 