Earliest association of author to a specific Gospel

[gmx]

Irenaeus gives us the names of the four Gospel authors, as he understands them. When do we first become aware of Matthew's association with the gospel we now know as Matthew? I mean, when do we no longer just know that Matthew wrote a gospel, and become aware that Matthew wrote Matthew's gospel specifically?

And yes, I accept that the names are just names. But at some point, the name Matthew (for example) became associated with a specific gospel. What is the earliest witness that can attest to that?

[Ben C. Smith]

I think Irenaeus is the first sure and extant witness to the canonical gospel of Matthew having been penned by the apostle Matthew.

Papias, quite a bit earlier than Irenaeus, passed on a tradition from a certain John the elder to the effect that Matthew penned a gospel in Hebrew, which in turn had been translated (more than once, and presumably into Greek). It seems likely that Papias regarded our canonical Greek Matthew as one of these translations; but no absolute certainty is possible.

Justin Martyr quotes or alludes to Matthean material before Irenaeus (but after Papias), but never says that it came from Matthew. Theophilus, roughly contemporaneous with Irenaeus, does the same.

Ben.

[gmx]

Thanks Ben. Matthew was just an example chosen to phrase my question, and possibly a poor choice at that. When is the earliest quotation from one of the gospels that identifies itself as being from a particular gospel, or lacking such a reference, when is the earliest documentary evidence that associates a particular gospel with one of the four evangelists?

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks Ben. Matthew was just an example chosen to phrase my question, and possibly a poor choice at that. When is the earliest quotation from one of the gospels that identifies itself as being from a particular gospel, or lacking such a reference, when is the earliest documentary evidence that associates a particular gospel with one of the four evangelists?

I think Irenaeus is the earliest explicit witness for Mark and Luke, as well (that is, the earliest to quote a line from Mark or Luke and attribute it by name to the gospel called Mark or Luke). He quotes Mark 1.1-3 and Mark 16.19, as well as lots of verses from Luke.

For John, it is either Irenaeus (again) or Polycrates (who says that it was John who rested on the breast of the Lord; refer to John 13.25) or Theophilus of Antioch (who claims that it was John who said: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God"; refer to John 1.1). All three date from late century II.

As for documentary evidence, there are papyrus fragments of the gospels that may date earlier than Irenaeus, but they are random fragments from the text, usually lacking an ascription to any author by name. The early papyri that may contain an ascription (based on the range of their contents only; I have not checked them myself) are Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75.

Ben.

ETA: I have a web page with a list of papyri containing the canonical gospels, the approximate dates of those papyri, and their approximate contents by verse.

[Bernard Muller]

For John, it is either Irenaeus (again) or Polycrates (who says that it was John who rested on the breast of the Lord; refer to John 13.25) or Theophilus of Antioch (who claims that it was John who said: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God"; refer to John 1.1). All three date from late century II.

From my webpage http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
Around 150, some Valentinian, probably Ptolemy, commented on the prologue of the gospel of John, as recorded by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', 1.8.5:
"John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it "Son" and "Only-Begotten God." ...
By this (Son), he says, was emitted the Word, ...
Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God." [Jn1:1-2] First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. ...
"The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made." [Jn1:3] For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aions that came after it.
But furthermore (he says), "That which came into being in it was Life." [Jn1:4a] Here he discloses a pair. ...
Indeed, inasmuch as he adds, "and Life was the light of human beings" [Jn1:4b], in speaking of human beings he has now disclosed also the Church by means of a synonym, so that with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair. ...
Paul, too, says this: "For anything that becomes visible is light." [Eph5:13?] ...
For he calls him a light that "shines in the darkness" [Jn1:5a] ...
And its glory was like that of the Only-Begotten, which was bestowed on him by the Father, "full of grace and truth" [Jn1:14b] And he speaks as follows: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld its glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." [Jn1:14a] ..."

About gMatthew, I think Papias attributed some Q document (but not the gospel) to Matthew. That was used later by Irenaeus to assign the "first" gospel to Matthew.

Some comments from the same webpage:
Notes:
a) Papias reported also about sayings (oracles) compiled in Aramaic by "Matthew". Because those are sayings ("logias") only, I do not see here any relation with GMatthew, more so owing to "compiled" (rather than "composed"), as shown in most copies of Eusebius' work (HC). Furthermore, the fact that "Matthew" was attributed a collection of sayings (therefore emphasizing Jesus as a sage) is supported by the gospel of Thomas: logion 13 "... Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."..."
Once again, it seems Papias was addressing concerns when he wrote:
"Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could [explaining why the "logias" came in different versions!]."
(See here (http://historical-jesus.info/q.html) for more details, explaining the "Q" sayings might incorporate Matthew's logias)

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Around 150, some Valentinian, probably Ptolemy, commented on the prologue of the gospel of John, as recorded by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', 1.8.5:
"John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it "Son" and "Only-Begotten God." ...
By this (Son), he says, was emitted the Word, ...
Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God." [Jn1:1-2] First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. ...
"The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made." [Jn1:3] For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aions that came after it.
But furthermore (he says), "That which came into being in it was Life." [Jn1:4a] Here he discloses a pair. ...
Indeed, inasmuch as he adds, "and Life was the light of human beings" [Jn1:4b], in speaking of human beings he has now disclosed also the Church by means of a synonym, so that with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair. ...
Paul, too, says this: "For anything that becomes visible is light." [Eph5:13?] ...
For he calls him a light that "shines in the darkness" [Jn1:5a] ...
And its glory was like that of the Only-Begotten, which was bestowed on him by the Father, "full of grace and truth" [Jn1:14b] And he speaks as follows: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld its glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." [Jn1:14a] ..."

Why (around) 150? Why (probably) Ptolemy?

[Bernard Muller]

Why (around) 150? Why (probably) Ptolemy?

This is according to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ptolemy.html

I also want to say here that, in my views, Papias (120?) was the first to attribute a "Mark" to a gospel (even if he did not use the word gospel). My arguments for that are in that webpage: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html (Gospels, the external evidence and dating, also gateway to gospels dating through the internal evidence).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Around 150, some Valentinian, probably Ptolemy, commented on the prologue of the gospel of John, as recorded by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', 1.8.5....

Okay, fair point. I actually was not reading closely enough. Point conceded. I remember now dealing at one point with the idea that our first explicit knowledge of John as author comes from heretics, but had forgotten.

[Adam]

"Logia" "Logion" or whatever does not necessarily equate to "sayings" or "oracles", that was Schliermacher's mistake. Best scholars now think it means more like what we would call a "gospel".
But in my opinion that does not switch the best interpretation of Papias from the "Q" document(s) to GMatthew. My Evolving Proto-Gospel would have the it meaning something like Q + Triple Tradition, that our Proto-Mark is (an Augustinian-like) abridgment down to just the Triple Tradition of what was the Triple Tradition plus all the so-called Q sayings (and a bit of narrative) that got omitted. This latter larger document is what Papias talked about, but it did not include specifically Matthean materials nor the three chapters where Matthew and Mark overlap (most of Mark 6, 7, and 8).

[Ben C. Smith]

"Logia" "Logion" or whatever does not necessarily equate to "sayings" or "oracles", that was Schliermacher's mistake.

Agreed. Papias even applies the term to the/a Marcan gospel, which he describes as consisting of what the Lord both said and did.