peanutaxis

I have been charged with explaining the following.

It can't be true that the gospels were anonymous until as late as the early second centurly because christianity, and so also the gospels, had already spread to distant areas of the world by then. And the idea that many distant churches would [vaguely]-simultaneously name their gospels with the same name is preposterous - surely we'd end up with a misnamed or unnamed copy or two somewhere. It's much more likely that everyone knew to begin with who wrote them.

Any ideas?

mountainman

Constantine's authoritative and divine influence spread to distant areas of the world - as he and his ecclesiatical writers tell us on more than one occassion. From his very own and personal City of Constantine, c.331 CE, he was the first to publish "The Bible" and to bind all these totally and absolutely "unknown authors" into one codex (book). After this epoch, it was simply a matter of copying the original collection which "The Boss" had bound, and then hunting down any heretical works, and burning them before the doors of the empire's "Christian Basilicas", which is the story of the subsequent centuries. In short, the Constantine Canon was preserved (with the exception of "The Shepherd"), and the non Constantinian was treated as either heretical or "apocryphal" or both.

Iasion

Greetings,

That's not what happened at all.

The evidence shows that the Gospels were anonymous through most of the 2nd century - their names were attached later (possibly by Irenaeus in the 180s.) Other Christians simply copied those names.

The earliest references to the Gospels are as an un-named book or books. Here are some examples of 2nd C. references to the Gospels :


The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives no author's names.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'


This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given.




The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author is mentioned.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - no names are given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no names are given.


There are many more early references to Gospels WITHOUT author's names. It is not until late 2nd C that we see evidence of the four Gospels modern names. I'll leave Papias' controversial comments to other experts here.

All this argues that the names of the Gospels were late additions.


Iasion

neilgodfrey

What do the gospels have to do with the spread of Christianity if we are thinking within the constraints of the biblical narrative? Paul is said to have spread it throughout Asia and Greece without a gospel tract. The best Acts can tell us is that apart from one letter everything spread by word of mouth. Everyone used the Jewish scriptures to teach the gospel.

mountainman

Also have a look at the (4th CE) anti-marcionite prologues

Doug Shaver

Non sequitur.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever proposed that idea.