• Traditional attribution: According to Christian tradition, this Gospel was written by Matthew (also called Levi), a former tax collector who became one of Jesus’ apostles (cf. Matthew 9:9).
• Ancient testimony: Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (early 2nd century), reports that “Matthew composed the sayings [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.”
• Historical observations: The text we possess is in Greek, and it appears to use the Gospel of Mark as a source, along with another hypothetical source called “Q.”
• Modern scholarly view: Most specialists believe the author was not the apostle Matthew himself, but rather an educated Greek-speaking Christian writing around AD 80–90, who organized and adapted oral and written traditions for a Jewish-Christian audience.

• Traditional attribution: The Gospel is attributed to John Mark, a companion of the apostle Peter who is mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 1 Peter 5:13).
• Ancient testimony: Papias states that Mark wrote down, “without omitting or falsifying anything,” what Peter used to recount, though “not in chronological order.”
• Historical observations: The style is direct, with simple Greek and vivid details, which fits an eyewitness account transmitted orally.
• Modern scholarly view: Many historians regard Mark as the earliest of the Gospels (around AD 65–70), probably written in Rome or Syria, with the aim of encouraging persecuted Christians. The attribution to John Mark remains plausible, though not unanimously accepted.

• Traditional attribution: The author is said to be Luke, a physician and traveling companion of the apostle Paul, mentioned in Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 1:24.
• Ancient testimony: Irenaeus of Lyons (late 2nd century) confirms that Luke is the author of the Gospel bearing his name as well as the Acts of the Apostles.
• Historical observations: The author has a strong command of literary Greek and addresses a certain Theophilus (Luke 1:1–4), which suggests a Hellenistic cultural setting. He says he carefully investigated everything, consulting “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.”
• Modern scholarly view: The attribution to Luke is accepted by many scholars, though some believe we cannot be absolutely certain. The Gospel is usually dated to AD 70–90 and was probably written for a non-Jewish audience.

• Traditional attribution: This text is attributed to the apostle John, the son of Zebedee, identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20–24).
• Ancient testimony: Irenaeus says he received this information from Polycarp, who himself had been a disciple of John.
• Historical observations: The style and content differ significantly from the other three Gospels (the Synoptics). The theology is more developed, and the author presents himself indirectly as an eyewitness (John 21:24).
• Modern scholarly view: Many specialists think the Gospel was written by a disciple of John or by the “Johannine community” between AD 90 and 100, perhaps in Ephesus. Some passages may go back to John himself and have later been completed after his death.

Purpose of the test
This test aims to determine whether the authors of the Gospels intended, explicitly or implicitly, to report real historical events, rather than to create merely symbolic or purely theological narratives.

Arguments in favor

• The introduction to Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1–4) follows the form and style of the prefaces of ancient historical works regarded as reliable:

“Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed good to me also, having investigated everything carefully from the start, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

• The Gospels use a sober and responsible style, with incidental details and a concern for accuracy. They do not contain the mythological embellishments often found in other ancient accounts.
• Even the Gospel of John, which states a theological purpose (John 20:31: “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”), assumes that this faith rests on real events.

Arguments against

• Some claim that the earliest Christians, convinced that Jesus would return imminently, would not have felt it necessary to record his words and deeds.
• Others suggest that the Gospels may have blended the words of the historical Jesus with later Christian prophecies regarded as equally authoritative.

Responses

• Jewish tradition shows that eschatological expectation did not prevent written preservation: the prophets were expected in view of an imminent “Day of the Lord,” yet their words were still carefully preserved.
• The New Testament generally distinguishes between the historical words of Jesus and later prophecies. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul distinguishes between what comes directly from the Lord (Jesus) and what is his own apostolic counsel:

“To the married I give this command—not I, but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10). “To the rest I say—I, not the Lord—that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever…” (1 Cor. 7:12).

• Internal debates in the early Church (circumcision, divorce, the role of women) were not resolved by inventing new sayings and attributing them to Jesus, which suggests a real effort to distinguish his authentic words from later reflection.

Purpose of the test
To determine whether the authors and the earliest Christians had the means to transmit a testimony faithfully over several decades before it was written down.

Arguments in favor

• First-century societies relied heavily on rigorous oral tradition. Rabbis memorized the entire Old Testament; the disciples could therefore retain far more than what appears in the Gospels.
• Between 80 and 90% of Jesus’ sayings use poetic or rhythmic forms, with parallelisms and binary structures, which make memorization easier.
• The community protected what was being transmitted: it could publicly correct a storyteller if an essential point was reported inaccurately.
• The kinds of variation accepted in such a culture (10 to 40%) correspond to the level observed among the Synoptic Gospels, variations that concern wording more than substance.

Arguments against

• The risk of distortion over several decades is often compared to the “telephone game,” in which a message passed from mouth to mouth quickly becomes corrupted.
• Human memories can be shaped by later reconstructions.

Responses

• Unlike the “telephone game,” ancient oral transmission took place with regular checks and public corrections.
• The variations observed concern secondary details, while the essential meaning remains stable.

Purpose of the test
To evaluate the moral integrity and sincerity of the authors, in order to estimate their inclination to report the truth.

Arguments in favor

• Nothing known about the authors suggests that they were dishonest or immoral.
• Jesus taught radical honesty, for example: Matthew 5:37: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
• The apostles persisted in bearing witness despite persecution, poverty, and, for most of them, a violent death, which makes deliberate invention unlikely.

Arguments against

• Sincerity does not guarantee truthfulness: people can be honest and still be mistaken.

Responses

• Although sincerity does not ensure absolute accuracy, it greatly reduces the likelihood of intentional fabrication.

Purpose of the test
To measure the agreement among the different Gospels.

Arguments in favor

• The Gospels show substantial agreement in substance, despite divergences in detail.
• In antiquity, coherence was judged by overall harmony, not by word-for-word uniformity.
• Minor divergences suggest independence of witnesses: Simon Greenleaf argued that there is “enough discrepancy to show that there could have been no collusion, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.”
• The historian Hans Stier noted that an extraordinary account with no divergences at all is suspicious.

Arguments against

• Some divergences are difficult to reconcile. For example: the place of the healing of the demoniac is called the “country of the Gadarenes” in Matthew 8:28, but the “country of the Gerasenes” in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26; the genealogies of Jesus differ between Matthew 1:1–17 (which goes through Solomon and Joseph son of Jacob) and Luke 3:23–38 (which goes through Nathan and Joseph son of Heli); finally, the accounts of the healing of the blind men at Jericho vary, with Matthew 20:29–30 mentioning two blind men, whereas Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 mention only one blind man (named Bartimaeus in Mark).

Responses

• Harmonizations are possible: Gerasa may refer to a small locality transcribed differently, and the genealogies may reflect different legal or biological lines.
• In cases where the explanation remains uncertain, one may suspend judgment while still recognizing the overall coherence.

Purpose of the test
This test examines whether the authors of the Gospels had a personal interest in distorting the facts, or ideological prejudices that might have altered the truthfulness of their testimony.
A witness motivated by glory, money, or power may be tempted to reshape a story. By contrast, if testimony is maintained despite negative consequences (persecution, loss of status, death), that strengthens its credibility.

Arguments in favor
The authors of the Gospels and the disciples gained no earthly advantage from their proclamation; on the contrary, they endured threats, persecution, imprisonment, and, for most of them, death. Early Christian tradition reports their fate:

• Matthew: Eusebius, citing Hegesippus (HE III.24), places him in Ethiopia; traditions differ regarding his death: killed by spear or by sword.
• Mark: founder of the church of Alexandria according to Eusebius (HE II.16); Coptic tradition (4th century) reports that he was dragged by horses to his death.
• Luke: companion of Paul (Col. 4:14); the dominant tradition says he died peacefully in Greece, though other isolated traditions claim that he suffered martyrdom (Pseudo-Dorotheus, De vita et morte Prophetarum).
• John: exiled to Patmos (Revelation 1:9); Irenaeus (Against Heresies II.22) and Eusebius (HE III.23) report that he died of old age in Ephesus; Tertullian (De praescriptione haereticorum 36) mentions an attempted execution in boiling oil, which he supposedly survived.
• James, son of Zebedee: executed by the sword on the order of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1–2).
• James, brother of Jesus: stoned in Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1); Eusebius also reports that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple before being finished off (Ecclesiastical History II.23).
• Peter: crucified in Rome under Nero, according to Origen as quoted by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History III.1); tradition adds that he asked to be crucified upside down.
• Paul: beheaded in Rome under Nero, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History II.25).
• Andrew: according to tradition, crucified at Patras in Greece on an X-shaped cross (Acts of Andrew, 2nd century; Eusebius, HE III.1).
• Thomas: according to Syriac tradition, he preached in India and was pierced by spears there (Acts of Thomas, 3rd century).
• Philip: executed at Hierapolis (Phrygia), either crucified or stoned (Acts of Philip, 4th century).
• Bartholomew (Nathanael): Eusebius (HE V.10) says he preached in India; traditions vary: flayed alive and then beheaded in Armenia (Armenian tradition), crucified in Arabia, or martyred in India.
• Simon the Zealot: according to various traditions, crucified in Persia (Pseudo-Hippolytus) or martyred in Syria.
• Jude (Thaddaeus): according to tradition, killed in Persia with clubs or an axe (Acts of Thaddaeus).
• Matthias (replacement for Judas): Eusebius (HE I.12) mentions his election; traditions vary: stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem (Pseudo-Hippolytus), or missionary in Ethiopia.

Note: it is important, however, to distinguish between biblical sources and later traditions:

• The Bible directly reports the death of James, son of Zebedee (Acts 12:1–2).
• Josephus (a 1st-century Jewish historian) mentions the death of James, brother of Jesus.
• For the other apostles, we depend mainly on later Christian writings (Eusebius of Caesarea in the 4th century, local traditions, apocryphal Acts).

What this shows

• The main authors and witnesses did not seek material or political gain from their message.
• Their perseverance, even in the face of death, makes it unlikely that they consciously invented their accounts.
• As Sean McDowell notes (The Fate of the Apostles, 2015), even if some traditions cannot be historically confirmed with 100% certainty, the general convergence shows that they accepted extreme risks without denying their testimony.

Arguments against

• A skeptic might object that traditions about the deaths of the apostles were embellished in order to inspire faith.
• Some details depend on late accounts and cannot be verified by contemporary sources.

Responses

• Even if some traditions contain uncertainties, it is well attested that several disciples (Peter, James son of Zebedee, and probably Paul) were executed because of their faith.
• No account suggests that they publicly renounced their testimony in order to save their lives, which is a strong indicator of sincerity.

Purpose of the test
This test seeks to determine whether the authors of the Gospels included, or on the contrary omitted, embarrassing or difficult elements. In historical study, the presence of such details is often regarded as a sign of authenticity: an author inventing a story tends to remove what could damage his cause.

Arguments in favor
The Gospels contain many episodes that do not favor their message or image, whether with regard to Jesus himself or to his disciples:

1. Sayings of Jesus that seem to limit his power or knowledge

   • Mark 6:5: “He could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” → This might be interpreted as a limitation of his power.
   • Mark 13:32: “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” → Here Jesus admits not knowing a specific point, which may seem incompatible with omniscience.

2. Sayings of Jesus that may shock or trouble readers

   • Matthew 27:46: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” → A cry that may give the impression of doubt or despair.
   • Matthew 3:14–15: Jesus’ baptism by John, even though he is presented as sinless. This may create confusion about the nature of Jesus.

3. An unflattering portrait of the disciples
   The Gospels do not hesitate to report behaviors that place the apostles in an unfavorable light:

   • Matthew 26:69–75: Peter denies Jesus three times, despite his protests of loyalty.
   • Mark 10:35–45: James and John ask for the places of honor in the Kingdom, provoking the indignation of the others.
   • Mark 9:33–34: The disciples argue about who is the greatest instead of understanding the mission of service that Jesus is teaching them.
   • Matthew 16:21–23: Peter takes Jesus aside to prevent him from speaking about his death, and is sharply rebuked: “Get behind me, Satan!”
   • Mark 14:50: “And they all left him and fled.”
   • Direct rebukes from Jesus for their lack of understanding:
     • Mark 4:13: “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”
     • Mark 7:18: “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him?”
     • Mark 8:17–18: “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes, do you not see, and having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember?”

Why these elements are embarrassing

• For Jesus: they may give the impression of limitation, ignorance, or weakness, which does not serve the image of an all-powerful Messiah.
• For the disciples: these accounts show their cowardice, personal ambition, misunderstanding, and lack of faithfulness at critical moments.

Arguments against

• A skeptic might say that such elements were intentionally added to create an artificial impression of honesty.
• Or that they serve a pedagogical purpose, showing Jesus correcting his disciples.

Responses

• In the context of antiquity, hagiographic biographies usually omitted anything that might tarnish the reputation of the hero and his close associates.
• The presence of these passages in the Gospels is therefore a strong indication that the authors did not try to hide real weaknesses and tensions, and that they transmitted testimony rooted in reality.

Purpose of the test
This test consists in examining whether the data found in the Gospels (place names, people, events) correspond to what can be verified through archaeology, external historical sources, or geography. Such correspondence strengthens the author’s credibility, because it shows a concern for accuracy.

Arguments in favor
Several archaeological discoveries and external historical references confirm details found in the Gospels:

To this may be added non-Christian literary sources:

• Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, AD 93–94) mentions Jesus, John the Baptist, and James, the brother of Jesus.
• Tacitus (Annals, XV, 44) confirms that “Christ, who suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate,” was at the origin of the Christian movement.
• Suetonius (Life of Claudius, 25) refers to disturbances in Rome “at the instigation of Chrestus.”

Arguments against

• Some archaeological identifications remain debated, such as the James ossuary, whose authenticity is disputed by some experts.
• The confirmation of certain geographical or historical details does not guarantee that the entire Gospel narrative is factually exact.

Responses

• The abundance of precise correspondences between the Gospels and external archaeological or historical data is significant: it implies that the authors were well acquainted with the geographical, political, and cultural context of the 1st century.
• Even if some pieces of evidence remain debated, the general trend of discoveries over more than a century has been to confirm, not disprove, many details of the Gospels.

Purpose of the test
To determine whether contemporaries publicly refuted the accounts.

Arguments in favor

• Jesus’ Jewish opponents acknowledge that he performed extraordinary deeds, but attribute them to another power (sorcery), which implicitly confirms that he really did such things.
• No contemporary account simply denies the essential facts reported.
• Christianity was born and grew in Jerusalem, where the facts could easily have been disproved if they had been invented.

Arguments against

• The hostile sources that have been preserved are later; oral refutations may have existed without being written down.

Responses

• The absence of documented refutation in a time and place where it would have been easy to provide one is significant in favor of authenticity.