Hello TStock, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You said:

"Isn't the scholarly conscensus that the Gospels are all pseudonymous? None of the four actually name themselves in what they are writing. I believe the scholarly conscensus is that when the Bible was being assembled (no earlier than 2nd century CE), advocates of their favorite VERSION of the Gospels attached names to them as a means of promoting them over other versions. There were dozens of gospels in contention for inclusion. Most didn't make it in. Paul was too detached to be fingered as one of the authors. He wasn't considered "credible" for that spot because he wasn't there."

Actually, we have a substantial amount of evidence indicating that the traditional authors did, in fact, write their Gospels, and did so well within the first century.

Matthew

At first, Matthew seems like an odd choice as an author. He does not feature prominently in the stories of Jesus. Yet he possessed unique skills among the apostles.

Matthew trained as a tax collector for Rome, giving him exceptional literacy and literary skills. In the early years of the church, Matthew wrote down the life of Jesus to give the early church a reliable account of what Jesus did and said.

“Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew style, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Papias, ca. 60–130, Fragments of Papias)

It’s a short but powerful witness. As our earliest record, it establishes that Matthew himself authored his Gospel, that he wrote in the “Hebrew style” (meaning either the Hebrew language itself, or in Greek, but with a Hebrew manner of speech), and that the early church trusted it as their authority.

Matthew wrote early, as Irenaeus attests:

“So Matthew brought out a written gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.” (Irenaeus, ca. 130–200; Against Heresies 3.1.1–2)

Peter died a martyr’s death in Rome during the persecution of Nero, sometime within 54–68 A.D. Matthew thus wrote his Gospel in the 40’s or early 50’s A.D.

Given that Jesus died and resurrected in 33 A.D., Matthew wrote barely a decade after Jesus’ days.

Mark

Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, taught a series of lectures in Rome about the life of Jesus. The audience loved them, begging Mark to record Peter’s words. Today we call these notes the Gospel of Mark.

“Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.” (Clement of Alexandria, ca. 150–215; Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13)

History provides abundant information on Mark, even down to his nick-name:

“…Mark, who was also called Stubfinger because he had shorter fingers with regard to the other dimensions of the body. He had been the disciple and recorder of Peter, whom he followed, just as he had heard him relating. Having been asked by the brethren in Rome, he wrote this short Gospel in the regions of Italy. When Peter heard about it, he approved and authorized it to be read to the church with [his own] authority. But after the demise of Peter, taking this Gospel that he had composed he journeyed to Egypt, and being ordained the first bishop of Alexandria he founded the church there, preaching Christ. He was a man of such great learning and austerity of life that he induced all the followers of Christ to imitate his example.” (Old Latin Prologue to Mark, ca. 175)

Eusebius adds even greater detail:

“To such a degree did the flame of true piety illuminate the minds of Peter’s hearers that, not being satisfied with having just one hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, with every sort of entreaty they urged Mark, whose Gospel it is reputed to be, being the follower of Peter, to bequeath to them also in writing the record of the teaching handed on to them by word [of mouth], nor did they let up before convincing the man. And by this means they became the cause of the Gospel writing that is said to be ‘according to Mark.’ They also say that when the apostle learned what had happened, the Spirit having revealed this to him, he was pleased with the enthusiasm of the men and authorized the writing for reading in the churches. Clement in the sixth book of The Outlines relates the story, and the bishop of Hierapolis, Papias by name, bears joint witness to him. […] This Mark was the first to be sent to Egypt to preach the gospel that he had also committed to writing, and was the first to establish churches in Alexandria itself.” (Eusebius ca. 260–340; Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1–16.1)

Given that Nero’s persecution claimed Peter’s life, we know that Mark had to write his Gospel before the persecution concluded. Mark can thus be safely assigned a date in the 50’s or early 60’s, at the latest.

Luke

Luke states openly that he was not an eyewitness to Jesus but he interviewed those who were. He composed his Gospel to provide certainty about the life and ministry Jesus. Luke seems to have interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus, as Luke’s Gospel tells many of her personal stories from her unique perspective.

The quotes above establish Luke as the author of his Gospel, yet we possess abundant corroboration:

“There were already Gospels in existence, that according to Matthew, written down in Judea, and that according to Mark in Italy. But guided by the Holy Spirit, he [Luke] composed in the regions around Achaia the whole of the Gospel.” (Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, ca. 175)

Origen adds his voice to the choir of testimony:

“[Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels. . . . The first written was that according to the onetime tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in Hebrew characters. And second, that according to Mark, composed as Peter guided. . . . And third, that according to Luke, the Gospel praised by Paul, composed for those from the Gentiles. After them all, that according to John.” (Origen, ca. 185–254; quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3–6)

Given that Luke composed his Gospel while following Paul, and that Paul died no later than 68 A.D./C.E. in Rome, we can safely assign the Gospel of Luke a date in the early-to-mid 60’s, at the latest.

John

John wrote late, decades after the first three Gospels. He filled in many gaps their accounts left out, fleshing out the life of Jesus.

Some today doubt that John the Apostle of Jesus authored his Gospel. Yet every trace of history confirms his authorship:

“I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself. . . . In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.” (Tertullian, ca. 160–225; Against Marcion 4.2.1–2)

“The fourth of the Gospels is John’s, one of the disciples.” (The Muratorian Fragment, ca. 175)

History also explains why John felt compelled to write his Gospel so late in his life:

“John the apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved very much, last of all wrote this gospel, the bishops of Asia having entreated him, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially standing against the dogma of the Ebionites there who asserted by the depravity of their stupidity, for thus they have the appellation Ebionites, that Christ, before he was born from Mary, neither existed nor was born before the ages from God the father. Whence also he was compelled to tell of his divine nativity from the father. But they also bear another cause for his writing the gospel, because, when he had collected the volumes from the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, and of Luke, he indeed approved the text of the history and affirmed that they had said true things, but that they had woven the history of only one year, in which he also suffered after the imprisonment of John. The year, then, having been omitted in which the acts of the tribes were expounded, he narrated the events of the time prior, before John was shut up in prison, just as it can be made manifest to those who diligently read the four volumes of the gospels. This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet constituted in the body, as the Hieropolitan, Papias by name, disciple of John and dear [to him], transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated.” (Old Latin Prologue to John, ca. 175)

John’s publication date is the easiest to establish, thanks to archaeology. The Rylands Fragment, a piece of a manuscript copy of John, dates to within 90–125 A.D./C.E. John therefore wrote in or before the 90’s A.D.

All the other “Gospels”

History solidly establishes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Other authors wrote minor gospels in the centuries following, but none of them ever compared to these four in length, authority, or in their depiction of Jesus.

These minor gospels include the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, and so on. All are incredibly short, usually a handful of pages. All depict a different Jesus than the one revealed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

From the earliest mentions in history, these minor Gospels were recognized as the products of fringe sects who wrote them to back up their divergent theology. Origen provides a good summary:

“For Matthew did not ‘take in hand’ but wrote by the Holy Spirit, and so did Mark and John and also equally Luke. . . . For there is also the gospel ‘according to Thomas,’ and that ‘according to Matthias,’ and many others. These are the ones ‘that have been taken in hand.’ But the church of God accepts only the four.” (Origen ca. 185–254; Homilies on Luke 1)

History is Christianity’s great ally

Many in skeptical circles turn away from this historical data. When they discuss who wrote the Gospels, they ignore the witness of history, because it does not support the viewpoint they desire.

Yet every ounce of history supports the Gospels’ claims to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. God left us with abundant testimony, such that we can place our confidence in these works.