Gospel Authorship Part VI: Questioning the Traditional Titles

In Parts I, II, III, IV, and V of this series on gospel authorship, I have been addressing the claims of scholars that 1) the traditional titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added later than the writing of the canonical gospels, and 2) the canonical gospels are all anonymous.

In this post, I would like to look more at the traditional authors of these texts and some questions those traditional authors pose for scholars.

First, lets look at the four traditional authors:

Matthew was a tax collector (called Matthew only in Matthew's gospel, elsewhere in the call of the tax collector story, he is called Levi, although a Matthew makes the list of 12 disciples in all three synoptics).

Mark, was neither a disciple nor an eyewitness according to Papias' statement, but was an interpreter of Peter and his gospel is supposedly a record of the preaching of Peter.  This Mark is often equated with John Mark from the book of Acts whose mother owned a home in Jerusalem where the early church stayed.

Luke was neither a disciple nor an eyewitness according to Irenaeus' statement, but instead was a companion of Paul (who himself was not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry).  This Luke is often equated with Luke the doctor (physician, healer) whom Paul mentions in three of his letters (Colossians 4:14, Philemon 1:24, 2 Tim 4:11).  Yet, Irenaeus does not make this explicit connection.

John was a disciple of Jesus, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.  Irenaeus makes the connection between John the son of Zebedee and the beloved disciple of the fourth gospel, though he does not spell out his reasoning for doing so.  John the son of Zebedee was a fisherman.

So those are the four traditional authors of the gospels.  We have two disciples (Matthew and John), two non-eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke).  We have a physician (Luke), a fisherman (John), a tax collector (Matthew), and a man of unknown profession (Mark).

Now, these traditional authors raise some interesting questions.  We know from the gospels that are written that the four authors of the canonical gospels were all competent Greek writers of varying levels of proficiency.  Now, this raises important questions for at least two of our traditional authors. Literacy rates in the first century were abysmal compared to today.  Estimates of literacy in the Roman Empire top out at about 10%-15% in urban cities (with probably much lower rates in rural areas).  In short, literacy was a luxury reserved for the rich, those who had leisure time.  Two of our traditional authors do not meet that standard.  John, a fisherman from rural Galilee would not typically be able to write in Greek (which would not be his native language at that).  Matthew, a tax collector would probably have limited literacy, but probably very limited and only enough to complete financial transactions. Neither the first nor fourth gospels in their evidence of fluid Greek prose seem to fit the pictures of the traditional authors.  For the second gospel (Mark), which has the least accomplished Greek composition skills, we do not know the profession of the attributed author John Mark, so we cannot make claims as to his literacy.  Finally, for the third gospel (Luke), which has the most complex and accomplished Greek prose of the four gospels, we know little for sure regarding its traditional author.  A physician may or may not be literate to a high level, but it certainly was not requisite for physicians to be literate at all.  So, the literacy of the traditional authors are all in some level of doubt.

A second question arises and that has to do with the scholarly consensus (see post on scholarly consensus here) regarding the synoptic problem.  In short, there is a consensus among scholars that the second gospel (Mark) was written first and was then copied by the first gospel author (Matthew), and the third gospel author (Luke).  If that scholarly consensus is correct (and I count myself among the scholarly majority in this matter), then we have a very strange situation.  If John Mark, a non-eyewitness of Jesus wrote his gospel first, why then did Matthew, an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus, copy large portions of his gospel, including the overall narrative structure, from John Mark, a non-eyewitness and non-disciple of Jesus?  Would not Matthew, an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus consider himself a greater authority on the life of Jesus and not bother to copy a large portion of his gospel from a non-eyewitness?

I will let these questions linger for a while.  Come back next time when I will hopefully wrap up this series with some tentative conclusions.

Scholarly Consensus

I want to take a quick break from my gospel authorship series (Parts I, II, III, IV, V) to follow a "short" rabbit trail that appeared in the comments section in part V.  An astute reader named Jeremy Ledger left the following comment:

Really enjoying reading this series - thanks for putting this together! I do however have a couple of queries about the points above that you label as "concrete evidence":

1) Can we firmly date all four gospels to the first century? What is the evidence for this? The consensus dates are something like 70 AD for Mark, 75 for Matthew, 85 for Luke and 95 for John. But as with the attribution of names that you highlight here, this consensus is based on quite flimsy evidence, and there is actually a high margin for error in all of these dates. This cuts both ways - the actual dates could be either earlier or later - but my understanding is that for John at least (and more controversially also for Luke and possibly even Matthew and Mark) the date could be some time in the second century. And in the case of John, we may have some parts from the first century, and some from the second.

Jeremy noticed that I had done something sneaky.  Well, perhaps not so sneaky, he noticed it.  And then again, I think sneaky implies the intent to deceive, and that was not my intent.  In fact, I think it was just laziness in my writing (and thinking), which is one reason I am trying to pick up my blogging again.  But, Jeremy questioned my use of the term "concrete evidence" to refer to the dating of the four canonical gospels to the first century, and he was correct to do so.  That would only be "concrete evidence" or "hard data" if we had, say, a dated manuscript, or a datable inscription, or perhaps a datable reference to the gospels that was in the first century.  We have none of those.  Instead, what we have is a scholarly consensus that the four canonical gospels should be dated in the first century (or, early second century at the latest) and I agree with the substance of the dates that Jeremy gave above.

So, I was mistaken in using this scholarly consensus as "concrete evidence."  So, what is a scholarly consensus and how should one be used in argumentation?

Well, in short, a scholarly consensus is when the vast majority of scholars in a given field, with the necessary training in that field, have determined, based upon the concrete evidence, that certain conclusions follow the evidence. It is important to note that scholarly consensuses are conclusions based on evidence and are not themselves evidence. This is true in all fields. One could list many examples: the safety of vaccinations, human caused climate change, evolution through natural selection, etc.

Now, some important things to point out.  First, scholarly consensuses are not easy to come by.  In general, scholars love to argue and debate.  They love to one up their colleagues. Moreover, there is probably no quicker way to gain scholarly respect and notoriety than to successfully overturn a scholarly consensus.  For example, if I could convince everyone, or nearly everyone in my field, that Q did not exist, then I would overturn a long held scholarly consensus in my field and would gain tremendous respect and notoriety (Oh, wait, someone may be doing this already, but unfortunately it was not me, but Mark Goodacre).  So, when scholars nearly all agree the the evidence leads to certain conclusions, those conclusions ought to be taken very seriously. It is not that they cannot be questioned, or even overturned, but that is a hard fought battle.

Now, I do think scholarly consensuses are useful for pursuing an argument, and next to "hard data" they are often the best that scholars can do given the scarcity of evidence in certain cases (like ancient history).  In that sense, I would stand by what I wrote in Part V, that the four canonical gospels can be firmly dated to the first century.  But, as Jeremy pointed out, this is a scholarly consensus, a conclusion reached by scholars based on the evidence, and is not itself evidence, and I was mistaken in my language in so calling it "concrete evidence."

In fact, the whole gospel authorship series began by questioning an assumption I had made that a scholarly consensus (that the gospel titles were added later and that the gospels are anonymous), a conclusion reached based on the evidence, was in fact evidence in the form of gospel manuscripts without titles.  Once again, there are no gospel manuscripts without titles.

So, bully to Jeremy for holding my feet to the fire and forcing me to be more precise in my language.

Gospel Authorship V: A Preliminary Observation

In parts I, II, III, and IV of this series ((and partially in the post on Higher Criticism) I have been dealing with two common scholarly claims about gospel titles: 1) the titles were added later than the composition of the canonical gospels, and 2) the four canonical gospels are anonymous.

In this post, I would like to sum up the evidence discovered so far, and see where we might press further to seek answers to the questions surrounding gospel authorship and titles.

Here is the concrete evidence we have.

1) There are four gospels that are firmly dated to the first century, all written by competent Greek writers.
2) All four of these gospels are formally anonymous (see here).
3) In the second century we have our first mention of gospels written by Mark (Papias, ca. 125, Irenaeus, ca. 180), Matthew (Papias, ca. 125, Irenaeus, ca. 180), Luke, (Irenaeus, ca. 180), and John (Irenaeus, ca. 180).
4) Also in the second century we have the composition of other gospels written in the names of apostles.  These are not formally anonymous but the claims to authorship come in the gospels themselves, and, given their late date, these claims to authorship are clearly spurious and are attempts to bolster the authority of these second century gospels.
5) In the third century the earliest manuscripts of the gospels that we have that are complete enough to have room for a title all bear the traditional titles of the gospels.

Here is one observation that seems to jump out when looking at this evidence: there is a clear shift in convention in gospel writing between the first and second century.  The first century gospels were formally anonymous and did not require the name of an apostle to gain credibility (presumably the first audiences of these gospels knew who the authors were and accepted their authority in these matters).  In the second century, association with an apostle had to be made explicit within the text itself to lend credibility to a writing.  I find it an odd coincidence that at the same time gospels were being forged in the name of apostles to bolster credibility, we find our first mention of the four formally anonymous gospels from the first century being attached to apostles (or their close companions).  This begs the question: are not these second century attributions of authorship to our four anonymous gospels just an attempt to shore up support for these gospels in the face of new gospels claiming apostolic authorship? Now, this is not concrete evidence against traditional authorship.  Instead, it is more like circumstantial evidence, but in the face of the scarcity of the data, circumstantial evidence might have to do.

Next time we will deal with further evidence that might help to answer these questions. Come back next time.

Higher Criticism, Science, and Why I do it.

Many religious Students often come to college religion classes unprepared for the way that their religion professors deal with the Bible.  To the religious student, often of very conservative religious backgrounds, their professors seem to be treating the Bible with utter disdain and disrespect.  Now, we can talk about whose fault this is at another time, for today I want to take a quick break from our discussion of gospel authorship (parts I, II, III, and IV), though today's topic is very relevant to that series, to discuss higher criticism, its relation to science, and why I, as a religious believer, engage in higher criticism.

Let's start with my last question first: Why do I engage in higher criticism of the Bible?  Well, I think the answer goes back to my childhood and is as deeply a part of me as is my personality.  From the very beginning, I have had an insatiable curiosity and drive to know the truth.  As a kid, I loved to take things apart to see how they worked. If something broke, I would take it apart to see if I could fix it. In high school I bought a Jeep that needed an engine swap.  With a little help from friends, I swapped the engine.  I just need to know how things work and why they are the way they are.  Now, this insatiable curiosity could have served me in many different careers, but I was also a devout Christian with a call to ministry, so I channeled my pursuit of truth to the one thing that was most important to me: my faith. I wanted to know the truth about my faith, about theology, about the Bible. So, many years, and three degrees later, I am still channeling this desire to understand into my profession as a scholar and teacher of the Bible.

Following this drive to understand no matter what has a couple of consequences. One of the first is that no question is off limits in the pursuit of truth.  There are no "truths" which are unassailable. There is no human doctrine that is "off limits" with regard to questioning it.  And this comes from the scientific revolution of the 1500s-1700s and the Enlightenment that followed.  Higher criticism in biblical studies was a logical outflow of the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment.  Question everything, seek the truth.

Recently a colleague of mine who teaches in the Biology department made an off the cuff comment that I found somewhat offensive.  No offense was meant, and I did not make an issue, but the professor said something like the following: "I always tell my [Biology] students that the difference between Biology and what is taught in the Religion department is that in Biology we deal with facts." Like I said, I do not think that this professor, who is a good friend and a believer, meant any offense, but the comment implied that what biblical scholars do is just make things up, while scientists seek the facts.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Biblical scholars seek the facts as well.  So, I want engage in a brief comparison between what I do as a biblical scholar engaging in higher criticism and what scientists do.

First lets do a quick refresher on the scientific method taught in elementary school.  Here is an image.  I consider higher criticism in biblical studies as a modified scientific method which, in its modern form, was solidified in the scientific revolution and Enlightenment by Francis Bacon and Renee Descartes.  Like Scientists, biblical scholars begin with (1) observation.  So for example, a biblical scholar will observe the gospels and notice the titles. They might make a second observation that nowhere within the gospels do the authors self identify (formal anonymity, discussed here) (2) Biblical scholars will ask a question: do these titles represent the names of the gospel authors or is something else going on?  (3) Form a hypothesis. For example: I hypothesize that the gospel titles represent the names of the authors.  (4) Conduct an experiment.  Oops, at this point biblical criticism must diverge from the scientific method.  We cannot conduct an experiment on the gospel authors. They are all dead.  We cannot recreate the first century in a lab.  So, biblical scholars must come up with another way to test their hypothesis (which is what an experiment is designed to do).  So, what substitutes for an experiment for biblical scholars is the rigorous collection of data. Biblical scholars will attempt to gather all of the relevant data in an effort to get the fullest possible picture of the situation.  Unfortunately, this is a poor replacement for an experiment.  Would that we could run an experiment and create a full data set, then run the experiment again to recreate the data set.  But alas, it is not so. Therefore, we must to the best we can with the data we have.  We cannot create new data. But we can always search for more.  Biblical scholars draw on all sorts of historical data and facts. We draw facts from ancient writings, archaeology, inscriptions, physical forms of manuscripts, etc.  So, contrary to my colleagues comments, we are in fact dealing with and constrained by the facts. The main difference is that we are limited by the recoverable data, which often times is very incomplete (as with the data regarding gospel titles, see here). (5) Draw conclusions.  At this point, biblical scholars must interpret the data to draw the best possible conclusions to determine what probably happened in the past.  I say probably because the data set is never complete.  Therefore these conclusions are always somewhat tentative, not nearly as secure as conclusions based upon repeated scientific experiment.  This is why there is such vigorous debate on many issues in biblical studies.  Often the data set is just too incomplete to draw firm conclusions.  But, other times the data set is sufficient to produce scholarly consensus (as is the case with Markan Priority in the synoptic problem).  (6) Report your results.  Biblical scholars do this through publishing books and articles, arguing for their conclusions and seeking academic discussion and debate.

To these I would add (7): Repeat.  Biblical scholars must constantly repeat this process, never rest easy, never cease to ask questions, must search for new data, and re-evaluate their conclusions in the never ending quest for the truth.

So, while biblical criticism is certainly not a "hard" science, our method is derived from the scientific method and attempts to be just as rigorous with regard to "facts" as any scientist would be.  The difference comes from the fact that science can create data through experiments, historical research has to work with the data we can recover from the past.

Gospel Authorship IV: Second Century Identifications

In Parts I, II, and III of this series, I have been exploring two common scholarly claims about gospel authorship: 1) The titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added later than the composition of the canonical gospels and 2) the canonical gospels are all anonymous.

Today, I want to discuss where these titles might have come from.  First of all, it is important for scholars to admit when they don't know something, and in this case, it is impossible to scholars to know if or when these titles were attached to the four canonical gospels.  It is possible that the titles were there from the very beginning.  But, discovering what is possible is not the task of scholarship. Scholarship, especially of the historical variety, is not about discovering what is possible, but rather, what is probable.  Given the evidence we have, what is the most probable state of affairs. Discovering what is most probable involves collecting all the available evidence and arguing for the most probable situation which gave rise to that evidence.

The first positive evidence we have of the names of our four canonical authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) comes from two second century authors: Papias* and Irenaeus.**  Let's first look at what Papias has to say concerning Mark:

 "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39).

According to Papias, Mark was Peter's interpreter.  Mark was not an eyewitness or disciple of Jesus, but rather was passing on second hand information.

And Papias on Matthew:

"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."  (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39).

A couple of things to note here.  First, Matthew is not explicitly identified as the disciple.  Second, and more curious is the phrase "Hebrew language." The gospel that we know as Matthew was written in Greek and shows no signs of ever having a Hebrew original.

Also of note for Papias on both Matthew and Mark is that he does not explicitly use the word gospel. But, for the sake of argument at this point, lets say that Papias is referring to the gospels we now know as Matthew and Mark.

On to the testimony of Irenaeus.  Irenaeus mentions all four canonical gospels.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).

Irenaeus says substantively what Papias had said, including the Hebrew dialect, while adding the word "gospel" and the information about Peter and Paul.

"After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.“ (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).

Irenaeus adds nothing of import to the Papias writing regarding Mark.

"Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him." (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).

Here we get our first mention of a Gospel by Luke.  Luke is identified as a companion of Paul, and therefore not an eyewitness of Jesus.

“Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1).

Here is our first mention of John's gospel.  Interestingly, this is the most concrete reference to any of our gospels. The mention of the one  "who also had leaned upon His breast," is a clear reference to the beloved disciple from John's gospel, but is the first time that anyone has equated the beloved disciple with John (son of Zebedee?).

So there you have it.  This is the second century evidence for gospel authorship.  With regard to Matthew and Mark, the evidence is early second century, with Luke and John it is late second century. Also, with regard to the evidence itself, only with John does what is said about his gospel clearly identify it as the gospel we know as John.  But, even though the evidence is not as strong as scholars might like, nevertheless, let us grant for the moment, that by the time of Irenaeus (circa 180 C.E.), the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were firmly attached to the gospels that bear those names today. What does this tell us?  Only that by the end of the second century, the titles were attached to the gospels.  And this predates our manuscript evidence, so it is not surprising that our manuscripts of the New Testament from the third century and beyond, all consistently bear the traditional gospel titles.  But, the second century evidence does not positively tell us when these titles came to be attached to the four canonical gospels.  To answer that question, the scholar will have to engage in much more rigorous research and interpretation.  And, the scholar will have to admit that with this paucity of positive evidence, there is no way to know for sure when these titles became associated with the four canonical gospels.

But that is a question for another post.  Come back next time.

* Papias was a second century Bishop of city of Hierapolis located in modern-day Turkey.  His writings are usually dated circa 125 C.E., but his writings are only preserved in the fourth century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea.

** Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons, France, and his writings are usually dated circa 180 C.E.

Gospel Authorship Part III: Apostles as Authorities

In Parts I and II of this blog series, I have been discussing New Testament scholars' claims about the canonical gospel titles being added later and the anonymity of the canonical gospels.

In those posts, I came to the following conclusions: 1) if the titles were added later than the composition of the gospels, the manuscript evidence is not the definitive place to look for an answer. All of our manuscripts bear the traditional titles. 2) The canonical gospels are all formally anonymous, meaning that within the gospel stories themselves the author does not identify himself by name.  Matthew and Mark are 100% formally anonymous and Luke and John give clues as to who wrote them, but those clues are opaque and do not lead to identification with a named figure.

Today I want to look at a phenomenon that occurred mostly in the second century and beyond among Christian writings. That phenomenon is the writing of new "gospels" attributed to one of the apostles or another authoritative Christian figure. Attaching the name of an apostle to a document clearly written in the second century or later appears to be an attempt to lend authority to the story being told. Let's look at three examples of attaching names of Christian authority figures to gospels to see how this works.  All three of the following gospels are dated no earlier than the second century.*

Coptic Gospel of Thomas (opening)

"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas
Thomas recorded."

Here we have an attribution of the sayings of this gospel to "Didymos Judas Thomas" the disciple of Jesus. If Thomas wrote them, they must be reliable, right?

The Protoevangelium of James (25:1)

"James, wrote this history when there was unrest in Jerusalem, at the time Herod died. I took myself into the desert until the unrest in Jerusalem ceased.  All the while, I was glorifying God who gave me the wisdom to write this history."

This gospel, which actually focuses on the birth of Mary, is attributed to James.  This is James, the older step brother of Jesus, presumably from a previous wife of Joseph.  This is the same James who later was a leader in the Jerusalem church.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (1:1)

"I, Thomas the Israelite, have thought it needful to make known unto all the brethren that are of the Gentiles the mighty works of childhood which our Lord Jesus Christ wrought when he was conversant in the body, and came unto the city of Nazareth in the fifth year of his age."

Here we have another attribution of a gospel to Thomas the disciple.  This gospel, perhaps the most entertaining of them all, deals with the exploits of the childhood Jesus.

These three, and many other gospels that I could cite from the second century and beyond, demonstrate that there was a practice in later Christian centuries of attributing contemporary works to authoritative figures of the past.  This was not a new practice, as second temple Jewish literature would often try and call on the authority of a patriarch like Moses or Abraham. But, it does stand in pretty sharp contrast to the four canonical gospels which are formally anonymous. I find it interesting that there was this need to attach an authoritative figure to gospels written in the second century, presumably to lend authority or credibility to the writing itself, while no such attributions exist within the canonical gospels (all dated to the first century).  So, as time went on, it appears that there was a need, beginning in the second century, to attach the name of a first generation Christian figure to writings to lend them authority.

Is it mere coincidence then that evidence for the traditional titles of the four canonical gospels also first appears in the second century?  That will be the question addressed in part four of this series. Come back and see.


*Dates come from Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003).  Some argue for a first century date for Coptic Thomas, but these early datings have not persuaded the guild as a whole.

Gospel Authorship Part II: Formal Anonymity of the Gospels

In my last post, I discussed two very important claims that New Testament scholars (myself included) often make. 1) The Gospel titles (The Gospel According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were added later than the composition of the gospels, and 2) the four canonical gospels are all anonymous.

The main conclusion reached in the last post was that a common assumption that is made based upon these claims, that we have early gospel manuscripts without the titles, is an inaccurate assumption.  In fact, the earliest manuscripts we have that have a space for a title, all bear the traditional gospel titles. The image to the right is a page of p75, a 3rd century manuscript that contains the gospels of Luke and John.  In the image, one can see the title of Luke (euangelion kata loukan), marking the ending of Luke's gospel followed by a couple of line breaks, then the title of John (euangelion kata ioanen).  As far as New Testament manuscripts, we don't have much that is earlier than the 3rd century, and much of that is fragmentary (meaning it would not contain a space for a title).  So, the manuscript evidence demonstrates consistent naming of the gospels in the 3rd century.  But, this is not surprising at all to NT scholars since the traditional titles of the gospels are certainly established in the 2nd century, so we would expect no less.  Of course manuscripts from the 3rd century would bear the traditional titles.  So, barring the discovery of earlier manuscripts, the manuscript evidence will not be able to solve the issue of gospel titles, how early they were attached to the gospels, and whether the gospels were originally anonymous.

Let's examine for a moment the claim that all four canonical gospels are anonymous?  What do scholars mean when they say this?  Well, if they are being careful, what they mean specifically, is that the gospels are formally anonymous.  That is, leaving off the issue of the titles for a moment, and not seeking to answer the question of whether the titles were there originally or not, in the stories the gospels present, the author does not step forward and identify himself.*  Nowhere in the four canonical gospels does the author say something like, "I, Matthew, am the one who witnessed these events," or "I, John, was the disciple who leaned against Jesus' breast."  The gospel authors, within the stories themselves, do not self identify.  This is what scholars mean when they call the gospels anonymous.

Now, each of the four gospels are different and need to be examined individually.  So, the formal anonymity of Matthew and Mark are 100% with no concrete clues as to authorship (the tax collector named "Matthew" in Matthew and the naked young man in Mark are certainly not "concrete" identifications of authorship).

Luke and John do give slight clues. Let's take a look at Luke 1:1-4:

"1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."

The author of Luke identifies himself here in many ways, but not by name.  A few things can be known about the author's identity from this passage.
1) The author knows of other attempts to write "gospels."
2) The author claims to depend on, but is not himself, an eyewitness.
3) The author has undertaken investigation.
4) The author wants to provide an orderly account.

All well and good, but none of these identifications get us closer to a name for the author.

Now look at John 21:23-25:

"23 So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Here we have a tantalizing statement that seems to attribute authorship.  This is an aside by the narrator of the gospel.  The disciple in question is not given a name, but throughout the gospel of John this disciple is known as the "beloved disciple," who is never associated with John son of Zebedee within the gospel.  On first glance, it would seem that the beloved disciple is the author of the gospel, but that cannot be.  In verse 24, the author(s) clearly self identify as "we."  "We know that his [the beloved disciple] testimony is true." So, this gospel is written by a "we" who are basing what they write on the testimony of the beloved disciple.  Tantalizing? Yes.  Any closer to identifying a name for the author(s)? No.

Well, that is enough for today.  Come back next time for more.

*I am assuming the authors of the four gospels are male.  I have no concrete evidence for this assumption other than the typical patriarchal nature of the first century Roman Empire.