Constantine's Role in the First Council of Nicaea and the Formation of the Biblical Canon.

I'd like to do a quick rundown on the First Council of Nicaea, what it's purpose was, what's Constantine's role was and what impact it had on the formation of the Biblical canon - spoiler alert: it has zero impact as it wasn't discussed. See the last section. 

1. Constantine's Role

Constantine the Great played a pivotal, though not supreme, political and ceremonial role in the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD).

Initiator and convener: He initiated the council and summoned bishops from across the Christian world to address the Arian controversy and unify doctrine. He considered unity of the empire and church essential for political stability

Political patron: He provided the imperial sponsorship, resources, and safe conduct for the gathering, which took place in Nicaea (Iznik, in modern Turkey). His presence emphasized that the council had imperial backing.

Mediating influence (not a doctrinal sovereign): He did not appoint himself as a doctrinal authority. The council was led by the bishops, with the presiding role typically attributed to Hosius of Corduba (a key advisor to Constantine). Constantine sought to influence outcomes through discussion and conciliation rather than by doctrinal decree.

Role in outcomes: He supported the adoption of the Nicene Creed, which established the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father (homoousios) against Arian positions. He also played a part in shaping the Meletian (Nicene) strategy and in the drafting of canonical and disciplinary arrangements, aiming for unity and cohesion within the church and empire.

Aftermath involvement: Constantine maintained a protective, sometimes paternal role in the church, using his authority to enforce the council’s decisions in the empire and to suppress theological alternatives that threatened imperial unity.

In summary, Constantine acted as the imperial catalyst and patron of the Council, facilitating its assembly, guiding its political context, and endorsing its doctrinal conclusions, while stopping short of claiming direct theological authority.

2. The Purpose of First Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

The First Council of Nicaea was primarily convened to address a growing theological rift that threatened the unity of the Christian Church and the stability of the Roman Empire.

Here is a summary of the key events and issues that led up to the council in 325 AD:

A. The Arian Controversy

The immediate spark for the council was a fierce theological dispute in Alexandria, Egypt.

The Conflict: A presbyter named Arius began teaching that Jesus Christ was not eternal but was instead a "created" being subordinate to the Father. He famously argued, "There was a time when he was not."

The Opposition: His bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, vehemently disagreed, arguing that Jesus was co-eternal and of the same substance as God the Father.

The Escalation: This disagreement evolved from a local debate into a widespread schism that divided church leaders and congregations across the Eastern Roman Empire, causing riots and public unrest.

B. The Arguments of Arius

Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, prioritized strict monotheism and the logic of causality. He argued that if the Father begat the Son, there must have been a beginning to the Son's existence.

The Slogan: Arius’s most famous argument was the phrase, "There was a time when he was not." He argued that the Son had a definite beginning and was not co-eternal with the Father.

The "Creature" Argument: Arius contended that the Son was a "creature" (ktisma) created out of nothing (ex nihilo) by the will of the Father. While the Son was the highest and first of all creatures—perfect and superior to the rest of creation—he was still essentially different from the unbegotten God.

Mutability: Arius argued that because the Son was a creature, he was arguably subject to change (mutable), whereas God is by nature unchangeable.

Scriptural Proofs: Arius relied heavily on specific Bible verses that seemed to imply subordination or creation:

Proverbs 8:22: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work..." (based on the Septuagint translation). Arius viewed this as the "smoking gun" that Wisdom (Christ) was created.

John 14:28: Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I."

Colossians 1:15: Jesus is called the "firstborn of all creation," which Arius interpreted as being part of the created order.

C. The Arguments of Alexander and Athanasius

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (and his young deacon Athanasius, who would become the theological heavyweight of the era) argued that Arius's position destroyed Christianity by turning Christ into a mere demigod.   

• Eternal Generation: Alexander argued that God is eternally the Father. If God is "Father," he must always have had a "Son." Therefore, the Son is co-eternal. There was never a time when the Father was alone; the Son exists eternally with him.   

• Homoousios (Same Substance): The anti-Arian party insisted that the Son was not created out of nothing but was begotten from the substance of the Father. They used the Greek term homoousios ("of one substance" or "consubstantial") to argue that the Son shares the exact same divine reality as the Father.   

• The Soteriological Argument (Salvation): This was Athanasius’s most powerful point. He argued that only God can save humanity.   

  • If Christ were a creature, his death would just be the death of one creature for others, which has no infinite value to bridge the gap between God and man.   

  • Therefore, for Christ to save us, he must be fully God.   

• Scriptural Proofs: They countered Arius with verses emphasizing unity and divinity:

  • John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."

  • John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God."   

  • Hebrews 1:3: The Son is the "radiance of God's glory." (Just as light is generated by the sun continuously and is never separate from it, the Son is eternally generated by the Father).   

3. The Quest for Imperial Unity

Emperor Constantine I had recently defeated his rival Licinius to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

• Political Stability: Constantine hoped Christianity would serve as a unifying force for his empire. However, the Arian controversy was creating deep divisions rather than unity.   

• Failed Mediation: Constantine initially sent his advisor, Hosius of Corduba, to Alexandria to mediate the dispute and encourage the two sides to reconcile. When this diplomatic mission failed to resolve the issue, Constantine realized a more authoritative solution was needed.   

A. The Convocation

To settle the matter once and for all, Constantine took the unprecedented step of calling a general council of bishops from across the entire empire.

• Purpose: The goal was to establish a unified consensus on the nature of Christ (specifically his divinity and relationship to the Father) and to secure peace within the church.   

• Significance: This gathering became the First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council, intended to create a standardized doctrine (which eventually became the Nicene Creed)

B. Nicene Creed

Definition: The council produced the original Nicene Creed, stating that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father (homoousios) and of one essence (ousia) with the Father.

Purpose: Addresses the Arian controversy by affirming the full divinity of the Son and the unity of the Son with the Father.

Significance: Established a foundational orthodox standard for Christian doctrine about the nature of Christ and the Trinity, shaping Christology for centuries.

Original Nicene Creed (325 AD)

Consubstantial with the Father

Light from Light, true God from true God

Begotten, not made, of one being (ousia) with the Father

Through Him all things were made

For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven

By the Holy Spirit the Lord, the giver of life

He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate

He suffered, and was buried

On the third day He rose again in accordance with the Scriptures

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead

His kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life

Who proceeds from the Father

Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glowed (glorified)

Who spoke through the prophets

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins

We look for the resurrection of the dead

And life in the world to come. Amen.

C. 20 Canons (disciplinary and organizational measures)

Church structure and governance

• Standardized ecclesiastical practice across the church, including rules for bishops, presbyters, and deacons.

• Regulated episcopal ordination, election, and provincial synods to promote consistency and accountability.

Liturgy and practice

• Established uniform dates for celebrating Easter (though calendar reforms would continue to evolve) and other liturgical practices to promote cohesion across the Christian world.

Canon law and discipline

• Addressed issues such as the handling of clergy who recanted under pressure (apostasy), restoration of penitents, and the legitimacy of certain episcopal acts.

• Prohibited certain practices and promoted uniform discipline to prevent local customs from diverging into heterodoxy or disorder.

Excommunication and Christian unity

• Emphasized the goal of unity within the Church and the empire, reducing regional disputes that could threaten political stability.

D Historical significance

Doctrinal coherence

• Cemented the Nicene view of the relationship between the Father and the Son as foundational for orthodox Christian theology, influencing later councils and creeds (notably the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381).

Imperial involvement in church affairs

• Demonstrated the increasing role of the Roman emperor in doctrinal and organizational matters, setting a precedent for imperial sponsorship and influence in church affairs.

Canonical framework

• Laid the groundwork for early church law and governance, contributing to how bishops were organized, how disputes were handled, and how uniform practice could be pursued across diverse Christian communities.

Long-term doctrinal disputes

• Even though the council affirmed homoousios, Arianism and other Christological positions persisted for centuries, leading to further councils and theological debates. Nicaea’s creed became a touchstone in these ongoing discussions.

4. What about it's impact on the Biblical canon - which books include/exclude?

 
The Council of Nicaea did not address the Biblical canon at all; its primary purpose was to resolve the Arian controversy regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ, and produced the Nicene Creed to that end.

People mistakenly believe the Council of Nicaea decided the Biblical canon because a medieval myth claiming a miraculous selection process was popularized by Enlightenment thinkers and modern fiction.

The misconception stems from several sources:

1) The Synodicon Vetus: The myth's origin is traced to an obscure 9th-century Greek manuscript that claimed the canonical and apocryphal books were placed on an altar, and the spurious ones fell to the floor.

2) Voltaire's Popularization: The French philosopher Voltaire widely circulated this fictitious anecdote in his 18th-century Philosophical Dictionary, using it to satirize the Church.

3) Modern Fiction: Bestselling novels, such as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, exploited and perpetuated the idea that a politically motivated Emperor Constantine orchestrated the selection of the Biblical books at Nicaea.

4) Misunderstanding the Term "Canon": The word canon means different things. The Council of Nicaea did issue twenty rules or "canons" (disciplinary laws) for church governance, which may have led to confusion with the Biblical "canon" (list of authoritative books).

Note: The formation of the Biblical canon was a gradual process that occurred over centuries, driven by widespread consensus and usage within Christian communities, rather than a single council's vote. Key factors included Apostolic authorship or association, and alignment with orthodox Christian teachings. Later regional councils, such as the Council of Rome (382 AD), the Synod of Hippo (393 AD), and the Councils of Carthage (397 AD and 419 AD), affirmed the 27 books of the New Testament that were already widely accepted.

Sources for Constantine/First Council of Nicaea

Britannica

Wikipedia

Catholic365

Christian-History

FourthCentury.com

Source for Debunking the myth of Biblical canon/First Council of Nicaea

Timothy Paul Jones website

The Muratorian Fragment

The Muratorian Canon (also known as the Muratorian Fragment) is important primarily because it is the oldest known list of New Testament books.

Dated to around 170–200 AD, it provides a unique historical snapshot of the Bible before it was officially finalized. Its significance lies in what it tells us about how early Christians decided which books belonged in the Bible and which did not.

Here is a breakdown of why it is historically and theologically significant:

1. It Proves the "Core" Bible Existed Early

A common misconception is that the New Testament was created by a church council (like the Council of Nicaea) in the 4th century. The Muratorian Canon debunks this by showing that the "core" of the New Testament was already recognized and functioning as scripture nearly 200 years earlier.

• The Consensus: By AD 200, the church had already accepted the four Gospels, Acts, and all 13 of Paul's letters as authoritative.

• The Takeaway: The later councils didn't invent the Bible; they mostly ratified what the church had already been using for centuries.

2. It Shows the Church Fighting Heresy

The list was not written in a vacuum; it was likely a response to heretics, particularly Marcion, who tried to create his own edited version of the Bible (removing the Old Testament and most of the New).

• The Muratorian Canon explicitly rejects writings by Marcion and Gnostic groups.\

• It demonstrates that the early church defined the canon not just to say "what we read," but to draw a protective line against false

Most scholars agree that the original Muratorian Canon dates to the late 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD) primarily due to a specific internal reference to the bishop of Rome, Pius I.  While a minority of scholars have argued for a 4th-century date, the consensus remains with the earlier dating for several historical and textual reasons.

Here is a breakdown of why the late 2nd-century date is the dominant scholarly view.

1. The "Smoking Gun": The Reference to Pius I

The strongest argument for the 2nd-century date is a specific historical claim found within the text regarding the Shepherd of Hermas (an early Christian writing). The fragment states:

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome."

Note that Pius I was the Bishop of Rome (Pope) roughly from 140 to 155 AD.

The Implication: For an author to describe Pius's term as "very recently, in our times," they must be writing shortly after that period. This naturally places the composition of the document in the latter half of the 2nd century (c. 170–180 AD), likely within living memory of Pius's bishopric.

2. The Historical Context: Addressing 2nd-Century Heresies

The document appears to be written defensively against specific heresies that were most dangerous and prominent in the 2nd century, rather than the 4th.

Marcionism: The fragment explicitly rejects the writings of Marcion, a 2nd-century heretic who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament. The fragment’s emphasis on accepting four Gospels (rather than Marcion's one mutilated Luke) and the connection between the Old and New Testaments fits the anti-Marcionite struggles of that era.

Montanism: The text stresses that the number of prophets is "complete," which scholars interpret as a rebuttal to Montanism (the "New Prophecy"), a movement that claimed new divine revelation was continuing through its own prophets in the late 2nd century.

Gnosticism: It mentions and rejects writings by Gnostic leaders like Valentinus and Basilides, who were active in the mid-to-late 2nd century.

3. The State of the Canon

The list of books itself represents a "primitive" or transitional stage of the New Testament canon that fits the 2nd century better than the 4th because it's a bit messy.  By the 4th century (e.g., the Council of Carthage or Athanasius's list in 367 AD), the New Testament canon was largely stabilized at 27 books. The Muratorian Canon, however, accepts the Apocalypse of Peter (later rejected) and excludes standard books like Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter.

Western/Roman Bias: The list reflects the specific usage of the church in Rome during the 2nd century. For example, it accepts the Wisdom of Solomon (often used by Roman Christians then) but is silent on books more popular in the East. 

Feature	Western Church	Eastern Church
New Testament Focus	Strong focus on Revelation; doubted Hebrews.	Strong focus on Hebrews; doubted Revelation.
Old Testament Basis	Shifted toward Hebrew Canon (Jerome), but kept Apocrypha via Augustine.	Strict adherence to Septuagint (Greek), including all Apocrypha.
Rejected "Fringe" Books	Shepherd of Hermas (rejected earlier).	1 Clement, Barnabas, Didache (used longer).

4. Linguistic Evidence

Although the physical manuscript we have is a sloppy Latin copy from the 7th or 8th century, philological analysis suggests it is a translation of an earlier Greek original.

The Christian church in Rome spoke primarily Greek until the mid-3rd century. If the document were a 4th-century Latin original, it would likely be written in better Latin. The poor quality of the Latin suggests a "literal" and clumsy translation from Greek, consistent with a 2nd-century.

The "Sloppy Scribe" & Muratorian Fragment

• The specific details about the 8th-century scribe and his errors come from the physical analysis of the manuscript itself (Codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup), largely popularized by Bruce Metzger.
  
  The "30 Errors" Proof: This specific claim comes from an analysis of the codex where the scribe accidentally copied a passage from St. Ambrose (De Abraham) twice.

  • Source: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Metzger (and scholars like Samuel P. Tregelles) compared the two identical passages and found that the scribe made roughly 30 mistakes in just 30 lines (misspellings, dropped words, nonsense grammar), proving he was likely illiterate in the language he was copying.

• The "Barbarous Latin": The description of the text as "rustic" or "vulgar" Latin is the standard academic view, noting that it breaks the rules of classical Latin grammar (e.g., wrong case endings), which suggests it was a poor translation from a Greek original.

The "Seven Churches" Principle

The core of this argument relies on a very specific, somewhat odd theological claim found in the Muratorian Fragment.

The Fragment tries to explain why the Apostle Paul wrote letters to exactly seven specific churches (Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans). The author argues that Paul did this to mimic the Apostle John, who wrote to seven churches in the Book of Revelation. By writing to "seven," they were symbolically writing to the "universal" (whole) church.

The Muratorian Fragment says: "...the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name..."

Chromatius of Aquileia (c. 398–407 AD) says: "...that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown by this sevenfold writing... following the example of his predecessor John, [Paul] writes to no more than seven churches by name..."

2. The Trap for the 4th-Century Theory

This parallel creates a logical trap for scholars who argue the Muratorian Fragment was written in the late 4th century (c. 375 AD).

A. The Direction of Borrowing The textual similarities are so close (specifically the phrase "following the rule/example of his predecessor John") that one author clearly copied the other. Scholars agree that Chromatius is the one borrowing, because he is summarizing a tradition that the Muratorian Fragment is explaining in detail.

B. The "Victorinus" Connection (The real nail in the coffin) While Chromatius writing in ~400 AD is bad for a theory that dates the Fragment to ~375 AD (because it implies instant, authoritative acceptance of a "new" document), the evidence goes back even further.

Scholars have noted that Victorinus of Pettau, a bishop who died in 304 AD, also uses this same "Seven Churches" argument in his commentary on the Apocalypse.

If Victorinus (c. 300 AD) knew this specific argument, the Muratorian Fragment (the source of the argument) must exist before 300 AD. This renders the "Late Date" theory (that it was written in the East around 375 AD) chronologically impossible.

3. Why this reinforces the 2nd-Century Date

If the text existed before 300 AD (proven by Victorinus) and was widely enough known to be quoted as authoritative tradition by Italian bishops like Chromatius in 400 AD, it aligns perfectly with the document's own internal claim—that it was written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD) near the time of Pius I. origin.

Summary Table: The Timeline Problem

Date	Event	Implication
c 170 -200 AD	Traditional Date of Muratorian Fragment	Fits internal evidence (Pius I)
C 304 AD	Victorinus of Pettau dies - The Fragment must exist by now.	He uses the Fragment's "Seven Churches" logic.
C 375 AD	Hypothetical "Late Date" Origin	Impossible: You can't write a text in 375 that Victorinus quoted in 300.

The information provided in our conversation is based on the scholarly consensus of New Testament textual criticism and Church history. Here are the specific primary sources (ancient texts) and secondary sources (modern scholars) that back up the information provided:

1. The "Sloppy Scribe" & Muratorian Fragment

The specific details about the 8th-century scribe and his errors come from the physical analysis of the manuscript itself (Codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup), largely popularized by Bruce Metzger.

• The "30 Errors" Proof: This specific claim comes from an analysis of the codex where the scribe accidentally copied a passage from St. Ambrose (De Abraham) twice.

  • Source: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Metzger (and scholars like Samuel P. Tregelles) compared the two identical passages and found that the scribe made roughly 30 mistakes in just 30 lines (misspellings, dropped words, nonsense grammar), proving he was likely illiterate in the language he was copying.

• The "Barbarous Latin": The description of the text as "rustic" or "vulgar" Latin is the standard academic view, noting that it breaks the rules of classical Latin grammar (e.g., wrong case endings), which suggests it was a poor translation from a Greek original.

2. West vs. East (Hebrews vs. Revelation)

The history of the "Bible trade" between East and West is documented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers themselves.

• The Primary Sources (Ancient Witnesses):

  • Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 325 AD): In his Ecclesiastical History (Book III, Chapter 25), he famously lists the "Antilegomena" (Disputed Books). He notes that Revelation is accepted by some but rejected by others (specifically in the East).

  • St. Jerome (c. 400 AD): Jerome explicitly mentions in a letter to Dardanus (Letter 129) that the "custom of the Latins" (West) rejects Hebrews, while the "Greek churches" accept it, and conversely, the Greeks reject Revelation. He argues that both should be accepted.

• Modern Scholarship:

  • F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture: A standard textbook that details how Athanasius (East) and Augustine (West) eventually aligned their lists in the late 4th century.

  • Lee Martin McDonald: A leading scholar on canon formation who emphasizes that the "Bible" was a fluid concept for the first 400 years.

Recommended Reading

If you want to read the books that serve as the "gold standard" for this topic, these are the two most cited works:

1) "The Canon of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger: This is the definitive academic book on how the books were chosen, containing the detailed analysis of the Muratorian scribe.

2) "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce: A slightly more accessible narrative of the same history.

Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament

Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (1867) is a seminal work by the 19th-century textual critic Samuel Prideaux Tregelles.

This book is historically significant because it was the first major English scholarly attempt to analyze the Muratorian Fragment in depth, and it serves as the primary source for the "incompetent scribe" argument that dominates modern textual criticism of this document.

Here is a summary of the book's key contents and arguments:

1. The Facsimile (The "Visual Proof")

Before this book, most scholars had only seen imperfect transcriptions of the Muratorian Fragment. Tregelles visited the Ambrosian Library in Milan and created a facsimile (an exact tracing/reproduction) of the manuscript.

• Significance: This allowed scholars worldwide to see the actual handwriting and the "barbarous" condition of the text without traveling to Italy.

2. The "Incompetent Scribe" Discovery

This is the book's most lasting contribution. Tregelles proved that the 8th-century scribe who copied the list was exceptionally careless.

• The "Ambrosian Doublet": Tregelles analyzed the same scribe's copy of a passage by St. Ambrose found in the same bound volume. The scribe had accidentally copied the same 30 lines twice.

• The Verdict: When Tregelles compared the two identical passages, he found over 30 errors in 30 lines—variations in spelling, dropped words, and nonsense grammar.

• Conclusion: This proved that the errors in the Muratorian Canon were likely due to the scribe's illiteracy or carelessness.

3. Textual Reconstruction

Tregelles provided a line-by-line analysis of the Latin text, attempting to "heal" the mangled grammar to reveal the original meaning.

• He argued that the text was a translation from Greek (which he attempted to retro-translate) and that the original list dated to the 2nd Century (c. 170 AD), not a later period.

• He defended the view that the fragment represents the "earliest catalogue" of the New Testament, establishing the core of the canon (Gospels, Paul's letters) well before the official councils of the 4th century.

4. Structure of the Book

• Introduction: History of the document's discovery by Ludovico Muratori.

• The Facsimile: A lithographed copy of the manuscript.

• Critical Text: The Latin text with notes on every error and correction.

• Commentary: Tregelles' arguments for why the list is a genuine 2nd-century voice of the Roman church, rejecting the idea that it was a 4th-century forgery.

In short, this is the book that established the academic consensus that the Muratorian Fragment is a 2nd-century list preserved in a very sloppy 8th-century copy.

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.

That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above? 

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

 This is a rebuttal of an argument presented on Reddit;  This is an outline of the argument presented:

Two claims

1. That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 
2. The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(These are reiterated in the conclusion)

Sources that Christian use (the Gospels and Acts) do not meet the criteria that historians use, which are:

• Numerous 
• contemporary [to the time question]
• independent
• Impartial
• consistent with other sources

Christian sources have the following issues

A - Are of a late date

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

C - are anonymous

D - akin to the telephone 

E - Use only one source 

F - Are contradictory 

G - are biased 

Further points

I - Salem witch trials, and eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout 

J - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

The rebuttal

A - Are the Gospels and Acts late?

First there is no argument presented for this. Selected scholars are cited, and a conclusion is drawn.  I could cite scholars who hold to a pre 70 A.D. date New Testamant . But the problem with this whole line of argumentation is that consensus isn’t critical thinking. Here is Bart Erhman:  I need to say that again: scholarly consensus is not evidence. But big but – if you have a view that is different from the view of the scholarly consensus, given the circumstance of who maintains the consensus, you probably should have some pretty amazing evidence of your own.

So, it comes down to who has the best explanation for the available data. But we cannot evaluate which argument the best explains data because there is NO argument presented, only the conclusions of selected scholars that are presumed to be correct. 

Remember the scholarly consensus was that the Hittites were a fictious people since there was no archaeological or historical evidence to support their existence. Except for the Biblical record and that “biased” piece of fiction certainly couldn’t be trusted in this matter. Until it could be  This is one of many examples where the “scholarly consensus” was proven wrong. So we have no reason to simply accept any scholarly consensus 

 As I argued here]the Gospels and Acts, the entire New Testament, in fact, is early. In short  the Jewish War in 66 , the Neronian persecution of the late 60s , the fall of Jerusalem in 70; there is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths. Easy to explain if none of the their deaths had yet to happen. 

A question

Do atheists/critics here also rail against the “myth” of Alexander the Great? If not, why not?

Alexander the Great lived ~356-323 BCE, but we only know about him due to: 

Diodorus Siculus' Library of History - c. 30 BCE  [350 yrs later]

Quintus Curtius Rufus' Histories of Alexander the Great - c. 40 CE [360 yrs later]

Plutarch's Life of Alexander - c. 100 CE [425 yrs later]

Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander - c. [450 yrs later]

Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus - c. 200 CE [525 yrs later]

This seems to be a double standard fallacy that is consistently used by atheists/critics; Judging the historicity of Jesus by one measure and the historicity of others ancients by a different standard. 

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

The only “argument” presented is the scholarly consensus of a late date. And thus any eyewitness would be long dead. However since we have good reason to believe that the New Testament was written early – see above – then there is no reason to discount the plentiful eyewitness accounts of the Risen Jesus 

C - are anonymous

Anonymity of the sources is not a death sentence for a historical document and should not be used as some kind of indictment of any anonymous ancient text. 

If rejecting an anonymous document is a standard used historians, I am have not been able to confirm it,  in fact, historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. See Gottschalk,  A Guide to Historical Method p 169 – If you have a source controverting this please provide it. 

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument concerning the “anonymous” Gospels. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” full argument here 

If we have people arbitrarily attaching names to the Gospels throughout the centuries, why is it that we don’t see that in the extant documents?  Why do we see only “Matthew” attached to Gospel attributed to him? And the same for Mark, Luke, and John?  

Evans summarizes, *“There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions"* Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts, page 53

D - akin to the telephone game

The Bible was not translated similarly to how the telephone game is played. The telephone game is designed to be confusing for the sake of fun. The Biblical authors did everything they could to preserve the accuracy of the biblical texts.

Oral traditions were involved in preserving some biblical texts, but this does not mean the oral traditions were not scrutinized and transmitted correctly. Similar to how a martial art is taught, repetition was used and perfection was expected by Jewish teachers. 

Oral culture is a culture in which stories are learned and passed on primarily by word of mouth. Those people tend not to rely on written accounts. Because the United States and Western Europe are not oral cultures, many people in these cultures struggle to understand how facts can be reliably communicated orally. But there is ample evidence that people who do live in oral cultures are capable of seemingly near-impossible feats of memory and accuracy.

The telephone game:

a) the message is heard and passed along one person at a time,

b) there are no controls over the message,

c) there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.

All of this makes it fundamentally different from the oral transmission of the Gospels:

a) The biblical stories were relayed in communities (not one-to-one),

b) when the stories were shared in community, many people knew the stories and would correct mistakes relayed in the retelling,

c) the people retelling the stories had a strong personal interest in the truthfulness of what they were saying, especially when persecution of the church increased.

The telephone game is irrelevant to how the oral tradition worked.

E - Use only one source

The further back in time one travels, the thinner the source material becomes. Sources for WWII are vast beyond the ability of anyone to master them. Sources for the Napoleonic era is abundant and more than adequate. Sources for the Hundred Years War are meager and somewhat fragmentary. For the Carolingian Period, one really needs to dig deep to adequately cover any topic. The Roman Empire is a jigsaw puzzle missing a significant number of pieces. Ancient civilizations are lucky to have one source to an event. 

Let one example suffice: the details of the demise of Pliny the Elder while he was attempting to rescue a group of Pompeiians when Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD are known from **one source only** - the report written by his son, Pliny the Younger, who was also present that day.

So to have one source for a historical event is not unheard of in history. And to reject the Gospels and Acts on the basis is to be guilty of the Special pleading  fallacy

The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem are vastly overstated; see this harmony of the Gospels and see how dissimilar they actually are. 

Secondly, the similarities are better explained as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses relating the same events. 

F - Are contradictory

For every alleged contradiction there are better explanations of the passage in question. But let’s look at the specific contradictions mentioned.

Note: A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

Many atheists/critics fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Many also fail to realize that these independent writers are at liberty to mention every detail, or as few as they want.

What is also fun to note is that atheists/critics will allege that the Gospel writers “copied” one another, then in the same breathe show differences, which undermines their first point!

Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself, or did Simon of Cyrene carry it (John 19:17, Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26)?

Both carried the cross.  John 19:17 does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone the **entire** distance or that **only** Jesus carried the cross,  it says he bore his own cross, which He did. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true.  John not adding that detail doesn’t equal a contradiction. 

Did both thieves mock Jesus, or did only one of them mock him, and the other come to his defense (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27:44, and Luke 23:40-43)? 

While Luke 23:39 does say “ One of the criminals…” this is not the same thing as ONLY one of the thief reviled Jesus.  Recording how one person was doing something is **not** the same thing as saying ONLY one person did something..

Luke seems to be relating what was specifically said by one of the thieves. Both men can be reviling Jesus in the beginning but later one of the thief has a change of heart. 

What did the women see in the tomb, one man, two men, or one angel (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and Matthew 28:2)? 

First, wherever there are two angels [or men] , there is also one! The fact that Mark only referenced the angel (“man”) who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic. The fact that Matthew only referenced one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

Even though Luke did not specifically refer to the two men as angels, the fact that he described these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” (Luke 24:4) should have been a dead giveaway. Moreover, he was  addressing a predominantly Gentile audience, Luke no doubt measured his words carefully so as not to unnecessarily give rise to their pagan superstitions.

Finally, after reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, any critical thinker has ample data to determine that the “man” described by Mark was an angel; that the “men in clothes that gleamed like lighting” were angelic; and that Matthew’s mention of only one angel does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem, or did they immediately leave and go to Galilee (Luke 24:49-53, Acts 1:4, and Matthew 28:16)?

Three times in Matthew, it is recorded that certain disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Jesus in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt 26:32; 28:7, 10). In Matthew 28:16 we see that the disciples went to Galilee. So, Jesus desired to meet with his disciples in Galilee. His disciples obeyed. Jesus did not rebuke them.

But, according to Luke 24:33-43, he also desired to meet with them in Jerusalem. The two places are about three  days journey from one another. People can't be in the same place at the same time, so this is a contradiction, right?

We must remember that the resurrection accounts of Jesus are coming from different, independent witnesses, So, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus met with his disciples in both places - but at different times. It appears that on Easter Day, he met with all of the disciples (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as the Gospel writers Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). 

We know that Jesus appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on earth after his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-7). Matthew, Luke, and John only mention some of the more prominent instances. Though Luke does not mention the trip to Galilee, in Acts 1:3 he states that there was a forty day period before Jesus' ascension. A lot can happen in forty days; including a three day trip.

(1) Assuming Jesus' words were stated on Easter Day, they were not stated in an absolute sense, but with an implied contingency (as determined from the other 3 Gospel accounts), given a future planned meeting in Galilee.

(2) The words in Luke 24:44 could have been stated on Day 40. The disciples did in fact stay in Jerusalem for ten more days, until Pentecost, as Luke himself relates in Acts 1:13.

It's merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44 on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11). At times information is just skipped; just like we skip it today.

 Both statements can be true. Just because information is omitted in one statement does not make the other statement false. In Luke 24, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee were omitted, but commented upon by both Matthew and John. However, notice that Luke never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day of his resurrection until the day he ascended up into Heaven. Acts 1:3 leaves a lot of room for a lot more activity (cf. John 21:25).

G – are biased

This objection eats itself. Everyone is biased. If the objection is to rejected any and all biased accounts, then all accounts must be tossed.  

I - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

When Christians say, or at least this Christian says, the supernatural what is meant is that a physical only model of the world is illogical we have good reason to think that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God 

 Anything "supernatural" must be in that context. 

J - eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout

This was  “A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations”

This study is mis-applied]

On one hand we have someone who was 

1) unknown to the witnesses, 

2) who was seen only for a few seconds, and 

3) who changed his appearance - a slight mustache during the crime but not in the lineup film 

Versus Jesus who 

1) walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for 42 months, then 

2) post Resurrection, who walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for a time and 

3) didn’t change His appearance [though He did hide who He was for some, temporarily] 

So we are comparing apples to oranges here. For an analogy to be a valid analogy the comparison between two objects must be similar. Given the above there is too much dissimilarity for this to be a reasonable or justifiable analogy. 

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

Reason is the basis of knowledge not empirical observation. And we know that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-defeating, so any who hold to that idea need to address how they ground goal-oriented, critical thinking in a physical-only model of the world where all things are caused by the antecedent physical condition acting in accordance with the physical laws.

Those that do not hold to Philosophical Naturalism, I’d ask what then is the objection to something acting outside the bounds of the physical laws? 

Conclusion:

The two claims revisited:

1 - That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 

First, we see the OP attempted to Poison the well (a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an opponent). Here it’s suggested that all Christians have are assertions not arguments grounded in facts. Why do that unless one is not confident of one’s view being able to compete and an intellectual discussion?

Secondly, the main (only?) argument is basically a presumption of naturalism or as Ruse puts it “but to act as if [naturalism] were” while evaluating data. 

Thirdly, given the arguments linked above we do have good reason to think that, sans the presumption of naturalism, the Resurrection of Jesus is historical. 

2 - The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given the above we do have good reasons to think that the evidence presented in the Gospels and Acts are exactly what was the criteria that historians use:

• Numerous 

• contemporary [to the time question]

• independent

• consistent with other sources

I left out “impartial” since no one is impartial.

I think this argument was an example of skeptical thinking, but skeptical thinking is not critical thinking It’s a low bar to sow doubt. The higher bar is to offer a better explanation  for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus).

Objection A - human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws occured. There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - First, can you explan why its "obvious" human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws? 

Second I'm not saying not saying that any human testimony can establish a suspension of natural laws; I am saying that since a physical-only model of reality is illogical, and that God is the best explanation for reality, and that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God thus thest Best explaination for the facts surround Jesus is that He rose from the dead. 

Objection B - There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - I guess you didn't read the  “floodgate” problem above

Objection C - What puzzles me is that an omniscient god could have anticipated skeptical reaction and preempted it by arranging conditions such that the resurrection was extraordinarily well attested.

Reply: There is more than enough evidence, but nothing can overcome, chronic skepticism - a suspicion about everything, that's a sickness. Suspicion means you've made a foregone conclusion; that's why one should be a critical thinker not skeptical thinker. 

Objection D - Jesus could have been a real person who was mythologized after his death.

How does one then explain the empty tomb? Various theories are examnied here 

Objection E - You are presupposing that the Bible must be accurate

For investigatory purposes one must assume that a text or testimony is accurate.  For example, when police take statements regarding an incident they assume that the statements are true and accurate then they can look for inconsistencies errors etc.  Assuming the document is the beginning of the investigation, not the end.  If one concludes that the document is true and accurate then there must be solid reasons for it. 

Objection E -You trying to control the narrative of what exactly is a "contradiction."

It's the law of non contradiction [one of the fundamental laws of logic] connect contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. If you think you have a better attested definition please provide it

The Gospels Are Not Anonymous Accounts

The scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are anonymous. At one level, that’s true. The names of the authors are not embedded in the text of the Gospels. And since we don't really know who wrote them, how can we trust that what they say about Jesus is true?

Anonymity doesn't matter

Historian C. Fasolt argues that Paul’s letter to the Roman church is helpful as a historical source “only on the assumption that it was written by Saint Paul.” Mike Licona, in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, notes historian M. S. Cladis’s response to Fasolt:

This is going to be news to countless social historians of the religions of the ancient Mediterranean basin who investigate archaeological and textual work without always knowing the specifics of the exact agents involved. Indeed, these historians are investigating the society that shaped the agents, even if they do not know most of the agents’ names (and all that this means).

They collect, analyze, and interpret evidence from a variety of sources—monuments and tombs, literary texts and shopping lists—in order to learn something important about the socio-historical circumstances in which people, like Paul, lived, moved, and had their being. The historian of antiquity, then, can learn much about the past from the ‘Letter to the Romans’ whether or not that text was actually written by Paul.

Here is the takeaway point: even if we grant that the books and letters of the New Testament are anonymous, we can still gather important historical information from those texts. Anonymity of the sources is not a death knell for historical studies, and should not be used as some kind of sweeping indictment of texts. We can know what happened to Jesus and his disciples two thousand years ago, using the New Testament documents as our sources.

We know who wrote the Gospels 

Martin Hengel makes the argument that titles like “According to Mark” were used much earlier than previously suspected (Studies in the Gospel of Mark 64–84). These titles were added sometime before the end of the first century, prompted most likely by the presence of two or more gospels that needed to be distinguished.

Part of Hengel’s argument is that the authorship of the four gospels was unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by the middle of the second century, and the only way for this to have happened was for the church to have known for quite some time who wrote the Gospels. If the authors’ names were truly not attached to their writings, multiple names would have been attached (as is the case with Hebrews).

To state it simply: if nobody knew for six decades who wrote the Gospels, the second-century witness wouldn’t have been unanimous. Rather, it would have been highly contested, and we’d have records of that. Instead, we find the traditional names as the only names.

This is especially significant when we realize that the Gospels spread throughout the Roman Empire as Christianity exploded onto the scene, and yet everywhere we look, the same four names are attached to the same four gospels. The ancient world was obviously not as well-connected as we are today. If people in one area arbitrarily attached the name “Matthew” to the first gospel, it would be an astoundingly rare coincidence for ALL people in ALL other countries to do the same. And yet in different countries throughout the ancient world, “Matthew” was always attached to the first gospel.

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” In papyrus 75, a papyrus from the middle of the third century, we read “on leaf 47 (recto), where Luke ends (at Luke 24:53), the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν [“Gospel according to Luke”]. Below these words is a blank space, the equivalent of two to three lines. Below this space follow the words εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάνην [Gospel according to John and then the opening verses of the Gospel of John.”

Evans summarizes, “There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions" (Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts  page 53).

It would have been nice if there were ancient publishers that had statements of authorship and dates of writing, but there weren't. Rather, we must rely on historical evidence, but in the case of the Gospels the evidence is ample. We can comfortably believe that the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is accurate, and that means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in a place to know who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught.

The EvidenceSupporting the Traditional Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Earliest Manuscripts with Author’s Names

Matthew: The earliest known manuscript fragment explicitly attributing authorship to Matthew is Papyrus 4 (P4), dated to around 150–200 AD. While fragmentary, it is associated with the Gospel of Matthew and aligns with later codices like Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 AD), which titles it "Kata Matthaion" ("According to Matthew").

Mark: Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 AD) is among the earliest complete manuscripts, labeling the text "Kata Markon" ("According to Mark"). Earlier fragments, such as Papyrus 45 (P45, c. 200–250 AD), are part of the Gospel but lack titles due to their fragmentary nature; however, no alternative attribution exists.

Luke: Papyrus 75 (P75, c. 175–225 AD) is the earliest substantial manuscript of Luke, bearing the title "Kata Loukan" ("According to Luke") at its conclusion. Codex Vaticanus (c. 300–325 AD) also consistently attributes it to Luke.

John: Papyrus 66 (P66, c. 150–200 AD) is the earliest significant manuscript of John, with the title "Kata Ioannen" ("According to John") preserved. Codex Sinaiticus reinforces this attribution.

Note: No surviving manuscript from the 2nd century onward attributes these Gospels to different authors or omits authorship when titles are present. The uniformity across languages (Greek, Latin, Coptic) strengthens this consistency.

Earliest Historical References to Traditional Authorship

Papias of Hierapolis (c. 95–120 AD): Recorded by Eusebius (Church History, 3.39.15–16, c. 325 AD), Papias states that Matthew wrote a collection of Jesus’ sayings "in the Hebrew dialect" and that Mark, as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down what Peter preached. Though Papias’ descriptions differ slightly from the canonical Gospels, they are the earliest external attestations linking these names to Gospel-like texts.

Justin Martyr (c. 120–150 AD): In his First Apology (c. 155 AD), Justin refers to the Gospels as "memoirs of the apostles," implying apostolic authorship without naming them explicitly, though later tradition aligns this with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD): In Against Heresies (3.1.1, c. 180 AD), Irenaeus explicitly attributes the Gospels to Matthew (an apostle), Mark (Peter’s companion), Luke (Paul’s companion), and John (the Apostle). This is the earliest comprehensive claim of traditional authorship.

Muratorian Fragment (c. 175–200 AD): This Latin document lists Luke and John as authors of their respective Gospels and implies two others (likely Matthew and Mark, though the text is damaged), reflecting early acceptance of these names.

Tertullian (c. 160–220 AD): In Against Marcion (4.2, c. 207 AD), Tertullian affirms that Matthew and John were apostles, Mark was Peter’s interpreter, and Luke was Paul’s associate, solidifying the tradition.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): Cited by Eusebius (Church History, 6.14.5–7), Clement states that Matthew and John, as apostles, wrote their Gospels, while Mark and Luke did so based on apostolic testimony.

Additional Supporting Evidence

Uniformity Across Regions: By the late 2nd century, writers from diverse locations (e.g., Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Egypt) consistently attribute the Gospels to these four figures, suggesting a widely accepted tradition.

Lack of Rival Names: Unlike the Epistle to the Hebrews, which saw varied authorship guesses (e.g., Paul, Barnabas), no early source assigns different authors to these Gospels, indicating a stable tradition.

Non-Apostle Authors: The selection of Mark and Luke—non-apostles—over more prominent figures like Peter suggests authenticity, as forgers might have chosen more authoritative names, as seen in later apocryphal works (e.g., Gospel of Peter).

Evidence Against the Traditional Authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Historical Disputes About Authorship (First Few Centuries AD)

No Explicit Disputes: There are no surviving records from the first three centuries AD of Christians explicitly denying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels. Early critics like Celsus (c. 178 AD, per Origen’s Against Celsus) attack the content but not the authorship, implying acceptance of the traditional names even among adversaries.

Faustus (c. 400 AD): The Manichaean Faustus, cited by Augustine (Against Faustus, 17.2), questions the apostolic origin of the Gospels, suggesting they were not written by the named authors but by later followers. However, this is late (4th century) and lacks supporting evidence from earlier centuries, reducing its weight as a contemporary dispute.
Historical References to the Gospels as Anonymous (First Few Centuries AD)

Internal Anonymity: The Gospel texts themselves do not explicitly name their authors within the narrative, unlike Paul’s epistles. This has led some modern scholars to infer initial anonymity, though no ancient source from the first few centuries directly calls them anonymous.

Papias’ Ambiguity (c. 95–120 AD): Papias’ description of Matthew’s "sayings in Hebrew" and Mark’s reliance on Peter do not perfectly match the canonical Gospels, prompting speculation that the texts he knew were different, potentially anonymous precursors. However, this is interpretive, not a direct claim of anonymity.

Justin Martyr (c. 120–150 AD): His reference to "memoirs of the apostles" lacks specific names, which some interpret as evidence that the Gospels circulated without fixed authorship in the mid-2nd century. Yet, this is inconclusive, as he does not deny the traditional authors.
Manuscripts with Different Names or No Names

No Variant Authorship: No extant manuscript from the first few centuries attributes the Gospels to different authors. All titled copies (e.g., P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus) bear the traditional names when titles are preserved.

Fragmentary Evidence: Early fragments like Papyrus 1 (P1, c. 200–250 AD) for Matthew or Papyrus 45 (P45) for Mark lack titles due to their small size, not because they were anonymous. The absence of titles in these scraps does not prove they lacked authorship originally.

Contrast with Hebrews: The Epistle to the Hebrews, genuinely anonymous, shows varied authorship guesses in early sources (e.g., Origen, Church History 6.25.14, says "God only knows"), but no such variation exists for the Gospels.
Additional Evidence Against Traditional Authorship

Literacy and Language: Matthew (a tax collector) and John (a fisherman) were likely Aramaic-speaking Jews with limited Greek literacy, yet the Gospels are composed in fluent Koine Greek, suggesting possible scribal or editorial involvement.

Synoptic Dependence: Matthew and Luke’s reliance on Mark (per the Marcan Priority hypothesis) and a hypothetical "Q" source imply they may be compilations rather than direct eyewitness accounts, potentially distancing them from the named authors.

Late Composition: Scholarly estimates place the Gospels between 65–110 AD, potentially after the deaths of some traditional authors (e.g., Matthew and John), raising questions about their direct involvement.

Evaluation: Which Side Is Better Attested by the Evidence?

Strength of Evidence for Traditional Authorship:

Manuscript Consistency: From the earliest titled manuscripts (P66, P75, c. 150–225 AD), the Gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with no variants or anonymous copies among surviving texts.

Early Testimony: Papias (c. 95–120 AD) provides the earliest external link, followed by a robust tradition from Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) onward, spanning multiple regions without contradiction.

Lack of Alternatives: The absence of competing authorship claims in the first three centuries strongly suggests an established tradition from an early date.

Strength of Evidence Against Traditional Authorship:

Lack of Direct Challenges: No contemporary disputes or claims of anonymity exist from the first few centuries; Faustus’ critique is late and unsupported by earlier evidence.

Manuscript Silence: While fragments lack titles, no evidence shows they circulated without names or with different ones, unlike Hebrews.

Indirect Arguments: Internal anonymity, language issues, and source dependence are suggestive but lack concrete ancient corroboration, relying heavily on modern inference.

Conclusion: The evidence supporting the traditional authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is better attested. The consistent manuscript tradition from the 2nd century, coupled with widespread early historical references and the absence of rival claims, outweighs the speculative and indirect arguments against it. While internal anonymity and compositional complexities raise valid questions, they do not constitute positive evidence of alternative authorship or anonymity in the ancient record. Thus, based solely on the historical and manuscript evidence, the traditional authorship holds stronger ground.

Other posts of interest 

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal