Roger Pearse

Your evidence for this claim would be most interesting to see.

The material you posted is substantially fraudulent, by the way. An instance on the first line: trying to suggest that Matthew was anonymous because we don't know for sure to whom the Ebionites attributed the lost Gospel of the Hebrews is delicious, if you are as cynical as I am. There is no evidence that any of the gospels were ever anonymous, at least until 1970.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

show_no_mercy

Can you name a Christian who quotes from Mark, Matt, Luke, or John prior to Irenaeus? As in, actually writes those names?
Can you list any 2nd century manuscripts of any of those gospels that actually have "according to Mark/Matt/Luke/John" in it?

No?

Didn't think so.

Minimalist

By all means start with Misquoting Jesus but continue on to Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It's a discussion of how "orthodoxy" emerged from the pile of competing doctrines which all existed early on.

If you can't find that book, PM me an email address. Somewhere around here I have an electronic version of it. I think I might have Misquoting Jesus, too. Personally, I hate reading books on a computer but I freely admit to being an old fart and I know that young people do not share my prejudice on that subject.

missblue

Well... this has kind of turned into a debate. Thanks for all the advice. I'm going to read up on both sides of the issue.

Roger Pearse

You will have to bear with me here. Justin Martyr mentions the gospels as being by the apostles. As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had no names. He likewise doesn't mention the names of the apostles either. Presumably these also had no names?

It's best not to make arguments from silence. Particularly considering that 99% of the texts from the 2nd century are lost. The testimony of authorship by those who could read those texts, however, is unanimous.

First you need to list all the second century manuscripts which have incipits or explicits.

You forget to mention, while making these irrelevant demands, some explanation of how these demands -- you offer no evidence -- demonstrates anonymity, whatever the answer.

As I said, there is no evidence whatever of anonymity. I notice that those who are most certain that the gospels are anonymous don't know any evidence either.

We need merely compare the gospels with the letter to the Hebrews, which clearly lost the name of its author at a very early date, to see the difference.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

You can also go to http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

It is NOT reasonable to assume that there were only four gospels. First of all it is not even reasonable to assume all four gospels were written at the same time period. It is far more likely that early Jesus believers had one version of the Jesus story and then other later SECT of Jesus believers redacted or modified the Jesus story.

The author of gLuke appears to confirm that he wrote his Jesus story after some other story about Jesus was available.

Now, to be called a Christian in antiquity it was not necessary at all to have believed in a character called Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

An apologetic source of antiquity, Justin Martyr, wrote that there were people who were called christians, almost the whole of Samaria, who believed in the Holy One Simon Magus since the days of the Emperor Claudius 41-54 CE.

There are other apologetic sources which also show that there multiple verions of Jesus Christ like Irenaeus "Against Heresies" and Hippolytus "Refutations Against All Heresies".

But, there is an apologetic source of antiquity that tends to confirm that there was a lot of confusion about the nature of Jesus up to the 3rd century.

This is a writer under the name of Origen writing in the 3rd century in the preface to De Principiis

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm

So, it would appear that there were major dis-agreements even among Jesus believers up to the third century.

Although the Canon may have not been decided at the First Council of Nicaea, there is an apologetic source of antiquity, "First Apology" by Justin Martyr, which tends to show that there was no Canon with four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology", written around the middle of the 2nd century, wrote that it was a document called the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the churches on Sundays.

"First Apology" LXVII Justin Martyr wrote not one single thing about any Gospel written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters thereby demonstrating his complete unawareness of any Canon.

One of those extraordinary material is "Church History" by Eusebius. It is most extraordinary since the author show exactly what he did to produce a fraudulent history of Jesus believers.

I will give an example.

The writer called Eusebius appeared to have mis-represented the writing of Josephus and others.

This is Josephus on the death of Herod Agrippa.

Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2 See http://wesley.nnu.edu

Now, this is Eusebius referring to AJ 19.8.2 in "Church History" 2.10.6 See http://www.newadvent.org

It is clear that Josephus did not make any mention of any angel. Eusebius misrepresented Josephus in an attempt to historicise events found in Acts of the Apostles.


But we have an apologetic source of antiquity that tends to show that it was people and not God who had the authority to say what was authentic or not and who decided what was in the Canon.

Look at "Church History" under the name of Eusebius. Even known forgeries or non-authentic writings are included in the Canon.

"Church History" 3.3.1 Based on the evidence that I have seen so far, it would appear to me that the Canon was a late compilation most likely compiled for the Roman Church in the 4th century since I cannot find any source of antiquity that showed any SECT of Jesus believers or Christians who used four contradictory , non-harmonised, gospels simultaneously.

I find it totally unconvincing that an early SECT of Jesus believers would use the birth narrative of gMatthew and gLuke at the same time when they are totally contradictory and each one renders the other as fiction.

Essentially the author of gMatthew claimed it was a complete secret and only the Magis knew where and when Jesus was born in Jerusalem before fleeing to Egypt, but the author of gLuke, without even mentioning the Magis, claim that there was a big angelic celebration and the shepherds were told the exact location of the baby Jesus and the shepherds in turn told others of Jesus after they visited him in the manger.

In essence, gMatthew's secret birth narrative was false or erroneous based on gLuke.

I find it to be very unlikely that these two contradictory narratives were simultaneosly original, one must have been later.

The Canon as found today must be late, at least after the middle of the 2nd century.

missblue

aa5874, thank you for the different opinion on Roger's posts. Roger, thank you for your opinion as well.

It appears many people have many different and conflicting opinions on the matter. Well, I assumed as much. More reason for me to read everything I can on the matter and decide for myself I suppose.

show_no_mercy

As I understand it, because he doesn't mention the names of the gospels, this proves -- to some people -- that they had names.

You should realize that you are also making an argument from silence, albeit in the opposite direction.

You are asserting that the gospels had names in the absence of evidence.

And what exactly are Matt and Luke except different (or "mutilated") versions of Mark? Authors who "subverted the body" of Mark? The synoptic problem itself is evidence that these texts were originally anonymous.

Are the gospels and the epistles the same type of writing? Genre? No? Why the comparison then? An epistle addressed to someone should have an author but in the case of Hebrews it doesn't. The only way this would be a valid comparison would be to assume that the gospels were personal letters written to someone.

Roger Pearse

It is certainly possible to depict the past in terms of our own prejudices, if we so wish.

Roger Pearse

Since you have snipped my point in order to make an irrelevant rejoinder, I regret that you lose my interest at this point.

All the best,

Roger Pearse