A common assertion in modern critical scholarship is that the Gospel manuscripts circulated anonymously for generations and that the authorial names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were later ecclesiastical inventions imposed on the text. This claim is repeatedly presented as a settled conclusion, yet it collapses when evaluated against the actual manuscript evidence and the realities of early Christian book production. The assertion does not arise from documentary data but from a theoretical presupposition rooted in form criticism and redaction criticism, methodologies that privilege conjecture over physical evidence. When the surviving manuscripts are examined using sound textual-critical method, the claim that no early manuscripts contain authorial attributions is demonstrably false.

The question is not whether the autographs originally included titles, since no autographs survive, but whether the earliest recoverable manuscript tradition reflects anonymity or authorial identification. The manuscript evidence answers this question decisively. From the earliest strata of the Greek manuscript tradition onward, the Gospels are transmitted with titles that attribute each work to a specific author. There is no competing manuscript tradition that preserves alternative names or presents the Gospels as truly anonymous literary works.

The Nature and Function of Titles in Ancient Book Culture

In the Greco-Roman world, book titles were not decorative appendages but functional identifiers. Scrolls were stored rolled up, with the outer edge often containing a tag or brief inscription identifying the work. Without a title, a Gospel manuscript would be indistinguishable from any other narrative about Jesus. In a four-Gospel collection, which was already in circulation by the early second century C.E., authorial titles were not optional but necessary. The claim that the Gospels circulated anonymously in such collections contradicts basic realities of ancient βιβλιοθήκη organization.

Titles were commonly written either at the beginning or the end of a manuscript. In codices, which became the dominant Christian book form by the second century, titles frequently appear at both locations. The presence of a title at the end of a manuscript is especially significant, because it reflects the scribe’s understanding of the work’s identity at the time of copying, not a later editorial gloss.

The Uniformity of Gospel Titles Across the Manuscript Tradition

One of the most damaging facts for the anonymity hypothesis is the complete uniformity of the Gospel titles. Every extant Greek manuscript that preserves a title attributes the same Gospel to the same author. There is no manuscript evidence of a Gospel “According to Thomas” competing with Matthew, no Gospel “According to Peter” attached to Mark, and no variation whatsoever in the authorial attributions of the canonical four. This uniformity demands explanation.

If the titles were added late, as critics claim, then one must explain how the entire manuscript tradition across Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome adopted identical titles without leaving a single trace of disagreement. Such unanimity is unparalleled in ancient literature. Late attribution invariably produces variation, not uniformity. The manuscript evidence reflects inherited tradition, not creative ecclesiastical labeling.

Early Papyri and the Presence of Authorial Titles

Several of the earliest Gospel papyri preserve explicit authorial titles, either in whole or in reconstructed form. These papyri originate from Egypt, the region that has yielded the earliest and most abundant New Testament manuscript evidence due to its climate.

Papyrus 4 (BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3) and the Explicit Gospel Title According to Matthew The image in question is Papyrus 4 (Gregory–Aland P4), catalogued as Bibliothèque nationale de France, Supplement grec 1120, ii 3, and dated securely to approximately 150–175 C.E. This papyrus preserves the formal Gospel title: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ “Gospel according to Matthew” This identification is not conjectural. P4 is a well-documented papyrus whose provenance, paleography, and contents are firmly established in the scholarly record. The fragment belongs to an early codex of Matthew and is widely recognized as preserving the superscription of the Gospel itself, not a later marginal annotation or secondary label. The title is written in early documentary majuscule, consistent with second-century Christian bookhand. The orthography Μαθθαῖον with double theta (ΘΘ) is the expected early spelling of the evangelist’s name and aligns with other early Gospel titles. The two-line layout, spacing, and isolation of the text clearly identify it as a book title, functioning exactly as ancient literary conventions required for codex identification. Crucially, this title is not embedded in narrative, nor is it appended by a later corrector. It is a first-hand scribal feature, copied as part of the original production of the codex. There is no paleographical or codicological evidence of later intervention. The ink, letter forms, and execution match the surrounding material attributable to the same copying event. The Significance of P4 for Gospel Attribution Papyrus 4 decisively refutes the claim that the Gospels circulated anonymously during the second century. By the mid-second century, Matthew’s Gospel was already transmitted with a fixed authorial designation. This attribution was not fluid, disputed, or experimental. It was formalized at the level of the book title itself. The wording “Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον” reflects early Christian understanding of Gospel authority. The phrase κατὰ does not indicate speculative authorship but identifies the Gospel as the authoritative presentation of the Jesus tradition according to the testimony associated with Matthew. This title form is consistent across the manuscript tradition and reflects a stable, inherited convention rather than a later ecclesiastical imposition. Continuity With Later Manuscript Evidence The importance of P4 is amplified when considered alongside later witnesses. Fourth-century codices such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus preserve the same Gospel titles at the boundaries between books. These codices do not introduce authorial names; they inherit them. The attribution found in P4 stands at the head of this documentary trajectory. The close textual relationship between Papyrus 75 and Codex Vaticanus in Luke and John further demonstrates that Vaticanus preserves a textual tradition already well established in the second century. P4 performs the same function for Matthew. Together, these papyri show that Gospel attribution was already fixed before the great majuscule codices were produced. Textual-Critical Implications From the standpoint of the documentary method, Papyrus 4 carries substantial weight. It is early, geographically independent, and functionally unambiguous. There is no counterevidence from any manuscript tradition suggesting an anonymous Matthew or an alternative attribution. No transitional titles exist. No competing author names appear. The manuscript record begins with attribution and remains consistent thereafter. Therefore, the claim that “the earliest Gospel manuscripts lack author names” is not merely overstated; it is contradicted by the physical evidence. Papyrus 4 stands as direct papyrological proof that at least one Gospel was already circulating with an explicit authorial title in the mid-second century, and it does so in the most formal and authoritative way possible: as the book’s own superscription.

Papyrus 4, commonly designated P4 and often associated with fragments known as P64 and P67, dates to approximately 150–175 C.E. This manuscript preserves portions of Matthew’s Gospel and includes a title identifying the work as belonging to Matthew. The title appears in a format consistent with early codex production and reflects an already established attribution tradition. This is not a late medieval addition but part of the second-century transmission process.

Papyrus 66 (P66) and the Explicit Attribution to John’s Gospel

The manuscript shown is Papyrus 66 (Gregory–Aland P66), dated to approximately 125–150 C.E. (often extended conservatively to 150–175 C.E.). It is one of the earliest and most substantial witnesses to the Gospel of John.

The opening text preserved in the fragment reads:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Translated:

“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.”

This confirms that the fragment comes from the opening leaf of John’s Gospel, not from an internal section. While the opening title page of P66 is fragmentary and does not fully survive, the manuscript does preserve the title at the end of the Gospel, which is decisive for attribution.

At the conclusion of the codex, P66 contains the explicit subscription:

Εὐαγγέλιον
κατὰ Ἰωάννην

Translated:

“Gospel according to John.”

This title is written in the same hand as the main text, using the same ink and letter forms. There is no evidence of later correction, supplementation, or editorial interference. The attribution belongs to the original production of the manuscript, not to a later century.

The placement of the title at the end of the Gospel reflects normal early codex practice. End-titles function as formal identifiers of the work just copied and are among the most stable paratextual features in manuscript transmission. A scribe does not finish copying an anonymous book and then invent an author’s name. The presence of this subscription demonstrates that the Gospel was already known and transmitted as John’s Gospel in the early second century.

When P66 is read alongside Papyrus 4 (Matthew) and Papyrus 75 (Luke and John), the evidence is consistent and cumulative. The canonical Gospels are already circulating with fixed authorial designations well before the fourth century. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus do not introduce these names; they preserve an attributional tradition already established in the papyri.

Papyrus 66, dated to approximately 125–150 C.E., is one of the most important witnesses to the Gospel of John. While the opening leaves are damaged, the end of the codex preserves the title identifying the work as the Gospel according to John. This placement is decisive. End-titles are not later marginal additions but integral components of the manuscript’s original design. The scribe who copied P66 knew exactly which Gospel he was transmitting.

Papyrus 75 (P75) and the Explicit Gospel Titles of Luke and John

The image you provided comes from Papyrus 75, an early papyrus codex containing substantial portions of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. This manuscript is of exceptional importance because it preserves the transition between the two Gospels, including the end-title (subscription) of Luke and the beginning-title (superscription) of John.

The End of Luke in P75

At the conclusion of Luke’s Gospel, P75 preserves the following Greek title:

Εὐαγγέλιον
κατὰ Λουκᾶν

Translated:

“Gospel according to Luke.”

This subscription appears after the narrative of Luke concludes, functioning as a formal identifier of the book just copied. The placement is deliberate and follows established early codex practice. The handwriting, ink, and layout match the main text, confirming that the title belongs to the original copying event, not to a later hand.

The Beginning of John in P75

Immediately following the end of Luke, the manuscript introduces the next Gospel with the superscription:

Εὐαγγέλιον
κατὰ Ἰωάννην

Translated:

“Gospel according to John.”

This title stands at the head of the next section and identifies the Gospel before its narrative begins. What makes this especially significant is that the manuscript then proceeds directly into the opening words of John’s Gospel:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

Translated:

“In the beginning was the Word.”

The codex thus preserves, in sequence, Luke identified as Luke and John identified as John, with no interruption, no uncertainty, and no alternative naming.

Why P75 Is Textually Decisive

Papyrus 75 is not a fragmentary anthology or a later compilation. It is a carefully produced early codex, copied by a disciplined scribe, preserving two Gospels with clear and stable attribution. There is no evidence of hesitation, correction, or competing titles. The Gospel names appear as settled facts.

This is especially important because P75 is textually extremely close to Codex Vaticanus. The level of agreement between P75 and Vaticanus is so high that Vaticanus is widely regarded as preserving essentially the same textual tradition, separated by roughly a century. This means that Vaticanus does not represent a new stage of Gospel identification in the fourth century; it reflects a second-century textual reality already present in P75.

In other words, when Codex Vaticanus presents Luke ending with “according to Luke” and John beginning with “according to John,” it is reproducing what we already see in P75.

Implications for the Claim of Gospel Anonymity

Papyrus 75 is devastating to the claim that the Gospels circulated anonymously into the late second or third century. Here we have:

A second-century manuscript
Containing multiple Gospels
With explicit authorial titles
At the natural book divisions
Written by the original scribe

There is no manuscript evidence of a “nameless Luke” followed by a “nameless John.” There is no transitional phase where titles are absent or fluid. The codex moves seamlessly from one named Gospel to the next.

The placement of the titles is especially important. End-titles and beginning-titles are among the most conservative elements in manuscript transmission. They are not casual labels. They identify the work as a literary unit. A scribe copying two anonymous narratives would not independently invent two author names and place them with such formal consistency.

P75 in the Broader Documentary Pattern

When P75 is considered alongside Papyrus 4 (Matthew) and Papyrus 66 (John), a coherent documentary pattern emerges:

Matthew is named in the mid-second century.
John is named in the early second century.
Luke and John are named together in the late second century.

By the time the great fourth-century codices are produced, the Gospel names are not developing; they are already fixed.

Papyrus 75 therefore stands as one of the clearest papyrological demonstrations that the canonical Gospels were transmitted with stable authorial attribution well before the fourth century and long before any alleged ecclesiastical consolidation.

Papyrus 75, dated to approximately 175–225 C.E., preserves large portions of Luke and John and likewise contains titles that identify both works. P75 is especially significant because of its close textual affinity with Codex Vaticanus, demonstrating continuity not only in text but also in paratextual features such as titles. The presence of authorial attribution in P75 shows that by the late second century, the Gospels were transmitted with fixed identities.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as Fourth-Century Confirmation of an Earlier Attribution Tradition

The fourth-century majuscule codices, especially Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B), are not the origin point of Gospel attribution but documentary confirmation of a tradition already fixed well before their production. Their value lies precisely in the fact that they preserve, in a formal and carefully executed manner, the same authorial identifiers already evident in the second-century papyri. These codices do not introduce the names of the evangelists; they inherit them.

The End Title of the Gospel According to Mark in Codex Vaticanus (B)

The manuscript shown is Codex Vaticanus, dated to approximately 300–330 C.E. It preserves the end of the Gospel of Mark followed immediately by the formal subscription identifying the Gospel.

The Greek title visible reads:

ΚΑΤΑ
ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

Expanded as it would be understood in context:

Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μᾶρκον

Translated:

“Gospel according to Mark.”

In Codex Vaticanus, the word Εὐαγγέλιον (“Gospel”) is often understood implicitly from context, with the evangelist’s name supplied as the identifying marker at the book division. This abbreviated presentation is a known scribal convention in Vaticanus and does not represent uncertainty or incompleteness.

Scribal Characteristics and Originality

Several features confirm that this title is original to the fourth-century production of the codex:

The lettering is written in the same formal biblical majuscule as the surrounding text.
The ink color and stroke weight match the primary scribal hand.
There is no sign of later overwriting, correction, or marginal insertion.

Codex Vaticanus is renowned for its disciplined and restrained scribal style. The Gospel titles are executed with deliberate spacing and minimal ornamentation, reflecting the codex’s overall aesthetic. The simplicity of the title does not weaken its authority; it strengthens it by showing confidence and standardization.

The Function of the End Title

As with Codex Sinaiticus, this title functions as a subscription, identifying the work that has just concluded. In early codex practice, subscriptions serve as confirmatory identifiers. They are placed after the narrative to mark the completion of a literary unit.

A scribe copying an anonymous narrative would have no reason to add a personal name at the conclusion. The presence of “according to Mark” presupposes that the identity of the Gospel was already known, fixed, and uncontested at the time of copying.

Relationship to Earlier Manuscript Evidence

Codex Vaticanus does not stand at the beginning of Gospel attribution. It stands within a continuum of documentary evidence:

Papyrus 4 names Matthew in the mid-second century.
Papyrus 66 names John in the early second century.
Papyrus 75 names Luke and John in the late second century.

Vaticanus, produced roughly a century later, preserves the same attributional framework. This is especially significant because Vaticanus is textually very close to Papyrus 75, particularly in Luke and John. That close relationship demonstrates that Vaticanus is not innovating in either text or paratext; it is preserving an earlier tradition.

The end title of Mark in Vaticanus therefore reflects the same established convention already visible in the papyri: each Gospel is transmitted as a named work, identified by its evangelist.

Textual-Critical Significance

The subscription “according to Mark” in Codex Vaticanus directly contradicts the claim that Gospel authorship was imposed late or artificially standardized. By the early fourth century, the Gospel names are not newly introduced, debated, or explained. They are simply recorded, because they are already assumed.

When Vaticanus and Sinaiticus—produced independently yet closely related textually—both preserve the same Gospel titles, and when those titles align perfectly with second-century papyri, the conclusion is unavoidable: the attribution of the Gospels is embedded in the manuscript tradition from its earliest recoverable stages.

This image, therefore, completes the evidenti chain for Mark. Matthew is named in P4, John in P66, Luke and John in P75, and Mark is securely identified in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Together, they demonstrate that the canonical Gospels were never transmitted as anonymous works within the historical period accessible to textual criticism.

In Codex Vaticanus, the Gospel of Luke concludes with a clear scribal subscription identifying the work as Luke, and the Gospel of John begins with a corresponding superscription identifying John. These titles are executed in the same scribal hand responsible for the main text, using the same ink and layout conventions. There is no paleographical or codicological indication of later correction, supplementation, or editorial intrusion. The titles belong to the original fourth-century production of the codex. They are not marginal notes, later annotations, or corrective additions by subsequent hands.

The End Title of the Gospel According to Mark in Codex Sinaiticus (א)

The image you provided comes from Codex Sinaiticus, dated to approximately 330–360 C.E. It preserves the conclusion of the Gospel of Mark, followed by the formal subscription identifying the Gospel.

The key Greek text visible at the end reads:

ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ

Translated:

“Gospel according to Mark.”

This title appears after the narrative text of Mark has concluded, functioning as a subscription, that is, an end-title identifying the work that has just been copied.

Scribal Features and Originality

Several points are textually decisive:

The title is written in the same majuscule script as the main Gospel text.
The ink tone and letter forms are consistent with the primary scribal hand.
There is no sign of erasure, overwriting, or later correction.

Although Codex Sinaiticus contains numerous corrections throughout its biblical text, the Gospel titles are not among the corrected elements. This is crucial. It demonstrates that while scribes felt free to correct wording within the text, they did not alter, question, or revise the identity of the Gospel itself.

The decorative marks and spacing around the title further confirm that this is not a marginal note or later annotation. It is a formal structural marker, part of the original codex design.

The Function of the End Title

In early codex practice, an end-title served as a confirmation of identity. The scribe finishes copying the narrative and then records what has just been transmitted. This practice is especially resistant to later alteration, because it is embedded into the physical structure of the book.

A scribe does not conclude an anonymous narrative and then supply an author’s name unless that name is already known and accepted. The subscription in Sinaiticus presupposes that “Mark” is the established identifier of this Gospel.

Continuity With Earlier Evidence

What Codex Sinaiticus shows for Mark is exactly what the papyri already showed earlier:

Papyrus 4 names Matthew in the mid-second century.
Papyrus 66 names John in the early second century.
Papyrus 75 names Luke and John in the late second century.

Sinaiticus, produced in the fourth century, does not introduce Gospel names. It preserves them in a more formal, carefully produced biblical codex. The same title formula—Gospel according to X—is used consistently across centuries.

There is no development from anonymity to attribution. There is continuity.

Why This Is Textually Important

The end-title of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus demonstrates that even in a manuscript known for corrections and scribal intervention, the identity of the Gospel is stable and untouched. This sharply contradicts the claim that Gospel authorship was fluid, uncertain, or retroactively imposed.

When Sinaiticus is read together with P4, P66, and P75, the manuscript tradition presents a unified picture: the canonical Gospels are transmitted as named works from the earliest recoverable stages of the text.

This image, therefore, is not merely illustrative. It is documentary confirmation that the Gospel according to Mark was identified as such in the earliest complete New Testament codices, reflecting an attribution tradition already well established long before the fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus exhibits the same phenomenon. At the conclusion of each Gospel and at the beginning of the next, the evangelist’s name is supplied as a formal title. Again, these are first-hand features of the manuscript. Although Sinaiticus is known for having multiple correctors within the text itself, the Gospel titles are not among the corrected elements. They stand as stable identifiers, transmitted without hesitation or variation. This is especially significant given the extensive corrections elsewhere in the manuscript, demonstrating that the scribes were willing to adjust textual readings but not the identity of the works themselves.

The importance of Codex Vaticanus is further heightened by its exceptionally close textual relationship to Papyrus 75. The agreement between these two witnesses is so strong that Vaticanus is widely recognized as preserving a text form substantially identical to that of P75, separated by more than a century of transmission. While P75 does not survive to the end of Luke, it does preserve the title for the Gospel of John, demonstrating that the attribution to John was already fixed in the late second or early third century. Vaticanus does not innovate at this point; it simply preserves the same attributional framework in a more complete and formal codex.

This continuity matters. If the authorial titles were late inventions, one would expect divergence between second-century papyri and fourth-century majuscules, especially across different geographical and scribal contexts. Instead, what the evidence shows is consistency. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus reflect an attributional tradition that predates them, one already visible in P66 and P75. The fourth-century codices therefore function as corroborative witnesses, confirming that the Gospel authors’ names were not fluid, disputed, or retroactively imposed, but already embedded in the transmission stream they inherited.

In this light, Codex Vaticanus does not merely testify to fourth-century ecclesiastical consensus. It testifies to the stability of a second-century documentary tradition. The presence of Luke’s name at the conclusion of his Gospel and John’s name at the beginning of the next is not an editorial decision of the fourth century but a faithful reproduction of the textual and paratextual features already established in the earlier papyri. This is precisely what sound textual criticism expects when a text is being carefully copied rather than creatively reshaped.

The Meaning of “According to” in the Gospel Titles

The Greek phrase κατά Ματθαῖον, κατά Μᾶρκον, κατά Λουκᾶν, and κατά Ἰωάννην does not mean “written by” in a modern literary sense, but “according to the testimony of” or “as presented by.” This phrasing reflects the early Christian understanding of the Gospels as authoritative apostolic testimony rather than individual literary creations. The use of κατά emphasizes continuity of message rather than personal authorship, yet it still identifies a specific source of testimony.

This linguistic feature further undermines the claim of late invention. The titles reflect early Christian theology of apostolic witness, not later ecclesiastical authorship debates. A second-century or later church attempting to invent authority would more likely have used explicit authorship formulas, not this restrained and consistent construction.

Absence of Competing Titles and the Silence of the Manuscript Record

If the Gospels were anonymous for decades, then early Christian communities would have circulated them under descriptive titles such as “The Gospel of Jesus” or “The Memoirs of the Apostles,” yet no such titles appear in the manuscript record. The total silence of the evidence speaks decisively. Manuscripts do not preserve transitional titles, evolving attributions, or competing claims. They preserve stability.

This silence cannot be dismissed as accidental. Thousands of Greek manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations exist, yet none testify to anonymity. The claim that anonymity preceded attribution is therefore not an argument from evidence but an argument from imagination.

Patristic Corroboration Without Dependence

Early Christian writers such as Papias, Irenaeus, and Tertullian consistently identify the Gospels by the same authors reflected in the manuscript titles. While the manuscript evidence stands independently, the harmony between physical manuscripts and early Christian testimony strengthens the conclusion that the attributions were not late ecclesiastical fabrications. The fathers did not invent what the manuscripts already conveyed.

Notably, no patristic writer ever remarks that the Gospels were once anonymous or that their authorship was uncertain. Such silence would be inexplicable if the anonymity hypothesis were true.

Scribal Habits and the Improbability of Post-Compositional Attribution

Scribes were copyists, not editors. Their role was to transmit texts faithfully, not to supply missing authorial identities across an entire literary corpus. The notion that anonymous Gospels were circulating and that scribes independently or collectively decided to add identical titles strains credibility. Scribal habits observed across the New Testament manuscript tradition demonstrate conservatism, not creativity, especially in paratextual features.

Moreover, titles are among the most stable elements in manuscript transmission. Variants occur within the text, not in the identification of the work itself. The stability of the Gospel titles aligns precisely with this pattern.

The Documentary Method and the Weight of External Evidence

When the documentary method is applied, prioritizing external manuscript evidence over speculative internal reconstructions, the conclusion is unavoidable. The Gospels were not anonymous in the period accessible to historical investigation. From the earliest recoverable manuscripts onward, they were transmitted with authorial attribution that was uniform, stable, and uncontested.

The claim that “no manuscripts have the authors’ names” is not merely incorrect but directly contradicted by the papyrological evidence. The claim persists not because it is supported by data but because it serves a skeptical narrative regarding the origins of the New Testament.

The Real State of the Evidence

Some of the earliest Gospel manuscripts do, in fact, preserve the names of the authors, and all extant Gospel manuscripts that contain titles agree on those names. There is no manuscript evidence for an anonymous Gospel tradition, no textual trajectory from anonymity to attribution, and no historical mechanism capable of producing such uniformity if the titles were late additions. The manuscript record speaks with clarity, consistency, and authority.

DEEP DIVE INTO EARLY DOCUMENTS

The Five-Witness Chain of Gospel Attribution in the Early Manuscript Tradition

The claim that the Gospels circulated for generations without authorial identification fails when tested against the documentary evidence that survives from the second through the fourth centuries C.E. The earliest recoverable strata of the Greek manuscript tradition preserve formal book-identifiers that attach each Gospel to the same names transmitted throughout the subsequent manuscript stream. These identifiers appear as titles at book boundaries, most commonly as end-titles (subscriptions) and beginning-titles (superscriptions). They are not part of the narrative text, but they are part of the codex production and function as the manuscript’s own declaration of a work’s identity. The following five witnesses form a coherent chain across time, script, and format: Papyrus 4 for Matthew, Papyrus 66 for John, Papyrus 75 for Luke and John in sequence, Codex Sinaiticus for Mark, and Codex Vaticanus for Mark, with Vaticanus also standing in demonstrable continuity with the P75 textual stream.

Papyrus 4, BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3, dated to approximately 150–175 C.E., preserves the title of Matthew’s Gospel in explicit form. The Greek reads, ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ, which translates, “Gospel according to Matthew.” The orthography Μαθθαῖον, with the double theta, reflects the established early spelling of the name and fits the second-century scribal environment. The placement and presentation of the words identify the text as a formal title rather than narrative content. In a period when Christians increasingly favored the codex for Scripture, such titles served an essential identifying function, especially in contexts where more than one Gospel circulated. Papyrus 4 therefore supplies direct second-century evidence that Matthew was already transmitted as a named Gospel, not as an anonymous narrative later attached to an apostolic name.

Papyrus 66, dated to approximately 125–150 C.E., provides an early and substantial witness to John. While the opening of the codex is fragmentary in places, the manuscript preserves the Gospel’s attribution in its end-title. The Greek reads, Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, which translates, “Gospel according to John.” This subscription functions as the manuscript’s formal identification of the work that has just been copied. End-titles carry special documentary force because they are integrated into the copying process at the moment the scribe completes the book. A scribe finishing an anonymous narrative has no stable basis for attaching a personal name, whereas a scribe completing a recognized Gospel records its established identifier. In Papyrus 66 the title is not presented as a debated claim but as a settled designation.

Papyrus 75, dated to approximately 175–225 C.E., is decisive because it preserves a two-Gospel sequence with titles at the transition, demonstrating that Luke and John were identified by name within the same physical codex. At the close of Luke, Papyrus 75 presents the subscription, Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν, which translates, “Gospel according to Luke.” Immediately thereafter, as the next Gospel begins, Papyrus 75 supplies the superscription, Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, which translates, “Gospel according to John.” The manuscript then proceeds into John’s opening line, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, translated, “In the beginning was the Word.” The codex thus preserves Luke identified as Luke and John identified as John at the precise book division where an anonymous-transmission theory requires silence, drift, or competing labels. Instead, Papyrus 75 exhibits stability. This stability is not confined to paratext. The text of Papyrus 75 stands in close alignment with Codex Vaticanus, showing continuity of the Alexandrian stream in both textual form and codex-level habits, including the presence and placement of Gospel identifiers.

Codex Sinaiticus, dated to approximately 330–360 C.E., preserves the end-title of Mark in a formal majuscule context. The Greek reads, ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, which translates, “Gospel according to Mark.” The subscription appears after the narrative concludes and functions as the codex’s own structural marker for the completed Gospel. Codex Sinaiticus is well known for corrections within the biblical text, yet the Gospel identifiers stand as stable features rather than fluctuating or contested elements. That pattern is significant: scribes and correctors addressed wording within the text at numerous points, but the identity of each Gospel as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John remained fixed. The end-title in Sinaiticus therefore contributes not merely a late witness to attribution, but a witness that demonstrates the immovability of the Gospel identifiers within a manuscript otherwise marked by extensive scribal engagement.

Codex Vaticanus, dated to approximately 300–330 C.E., likewise preserves Mark’s end-title at the conclusion of the Gospel. In Vaticanus the title is frequently presented in an abbreviated boundary format, with the essential identifier visible as ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, translated, “according to Mark,” with Εὐαγγέλιον, “Gospel,” understood from the established titling convention and the codex’s book-division practice. The functional meaning remains the same: the Gospel is identified as Mark’s. The form reflects Vaticanus’s restrained scribal style rather than any uncertainty of attribution. Vaticanus carries added weight in this discussion because its textual character in Luke and John aligns closely with Papyrus 75, demonstrating a continuity of transmission across more than a century. When Papyrus 75 identifies Luke and John by name at the transition, and Codex Vaticanus preserves the same titling system in its own boundary markers, the documentary picture is unified: the fourth-century codex reflects an earlier, already established attributional framework.

Taken together, these five witnesses establish a straightforward and continuous documentary line. Papyrus 4 supplies the title of Matthew in the mid-second century. Papyrus 66 supplies the title of John in the early second century. Papyrus 75 supplies the titles of Luke and John in immediate sequence in the late second to early third century. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both fourth-century majuscule codices containing all four Gospels, preserve the same authorial titles at the boundaries of each Gospel. In this discussion, the end-title of Mark has been cited from both codices as a representative example, since Mark lacks an early papyrus title comparable to P4, P66, or P75. Nevertheless, the same titling system applies consistently to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John throughout both codices. No competing authorial names emerge in any of these witnesses, and no anonymous alternative titling system appears alongside them. The surviving documentary record therefore preserves the canonical Gospels as named works across the earliest recoverable stages of transmission, with the Alexandrian textual environment providing the strongest and earliest anchors for both text and paratext.

MANUSCRIPT IMAGES

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

You May Also Enjoy

You May Also Enjoy

Who Wrote the Gospels Found in the New Testament of Our Bibles and How Do We Know?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS