Iasion

Greetings all,

The subject of whether the Gospels were originally anonymous or not has come up again, (re Aristides) - I present some evidence here to support my view that they were (which I naively thought was largely settled :-)

I am not so sure of this - there are several examples when the Gospels are referred to, or quoted from, as written works, without giving the names we know.

I understand your (Roger's) argument to be that these cases do not actually *identify* the Gospels because they don't specifically name them.

Reference to a "Gospel" without a name could be either :
* simply a failure to mention the (known) name of the Gospel, as you claim,
or
* reference to a document which is actually titled "the Gospel" without an authors' name at all.

Whilst the first explanation may apply to 1 or 2 cases, I do not think it holds water for all the examples.

(Furthermore, some examples clearly DO give variant names for a Gospel - e.g. "the Gospel of the NT".)


Examples:

* to Diognetus refers to "gospels" plural without naming any - surely the plural means written works, and goes on to mention "the tradition of the Apostles" - surely if he knew the Gospels were titled with the evangelists' names he would have given them?

* Justin refers to memoirs "called Gospels" and quotes them at length, but never gives specific names.

* the anonymous Anti-Montanist refers to the "Gospel of the New Testament" without mentioning any author.

* the acts of Peter refers to the "Gospel" being read without naming it.

* the Treatise on the Resurrection refers to "reading in the Gospel" without naming it.

* Hegesippus refers to the "scripture of the Gospels" (plural) without naming them.

* Julius Cassianus refers to the "four Gospels" without naming them.

* the Acts of Paul perhaps refers to a written Gospel ("the blessed prophets and the holy gospel") without naming it.

* as discussed, the Didache perhaps refers to a written Gospel (according to the decree of "the Gospel") without naming it.

* as discussed, Aristides seems to be referring to a written Gospel without naming it.


There are also numerous examples which seem to quote the Gospels without naming them :
Theodotus, Theophilus, Polycrates, 2Clement etc.


In summary, here we see about a dozen possible or probable early references to written Gospel(s) without any mention of an author.

Considering the importance of the Apostolic tradition, I think this repeated failure by the early writers to mention any evangelist is support for the view that the Gospels were originally anonymous - so, I'll stick with the authorities on this one for now :-)

Iasion

Iasion

No takers?

Haran

Or that the authors of the four canonical gospels were so well known that mentioning them was simply and understandably overlooked.

Don't the earliest complete MSS contain titles with the author's names? Swanson's GNT contains the titles of the earliest MSS, but I haven't checked to see how early they actully are though I'd expect them to be found on the earliest papyri that are physically whole at the beginning of a gospel.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, but what authorities?

Vinnie

You could always play with J.P. if you are bored:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

Do you accet the traditional authorshop of Annals?



Actually, there is a thread here somewheres where I argued that Mark did not author Mark.

Simple question: why would an eyewitness like Matthew use the text of Mark then?

Vinnie

Vinnie

If Matthew wrote Matthew then Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas

If these MSS don't date prior to the late 2d century then what's your point?

Vinnie

Doctor X

Indeed, the names came from favorite "eyewitnesses." Since the Synoptics and Jn were not written by eyewitnesses, the names attached to them are unreliable. Yessss . . . by some coincidence a Mark may have written much of Mk--depending on how many "proto-Mks" you want.

Or, to paraphrase Twain: "Shakespeare did not write his plays, they were written by another man with the same name."

--J.D.

Vinnie

But why would anyone attribute a Gospel to such a figure like Mark rather than a more popular one?

The correct answer is that everyone knew Mark wrote it. Thats why two different evagelists (one an eyewitness) used this Gospel within 10-30 years of its existence to compose their own!

:notworthy:

Vinnie

Doctor X

Indeed . . . the "eyewitnesses" managed to witness a birth that happened ten years appart from itself!

--J.D.

Vinnie

Actually Luke wasn't an eyewitness. If granted, his error was not all that bad anyways.

But Glenn Miller has a nifty little article up which harmonizes the accounts

And none of them were eyewitnesses for the birth either so your objection is irrelevant

now if the details given by the magi and mary or Josephus conflicted you'd be on to something.....

Vinnie

Doctor X

Luke: except he has Judas exploding while everyone else has him well hung . . . common mistake . . . hanging . . . exploding.

Neither the "magi" nor "Mary" leave any record. Josephus' all are questionable at best.

Not having any clue when your founding figure was born, not able get the sequence of his travels correct, messing up the politics and even how they executed people rather ruins the accounts as having reliable "eyewitness" elements. At best, methinks, they may have preserved some "difficult" traditions such as:

Junior was executed.
Junior claimed to destroy the Temple.
Peter somehow denied or betrayed him.

Be that as it may, the antipathy all three Synoptic authors and Jn show for the disciples argues against them having any cordial interaction with whatever was left of the Jerusalem group after the squishing of Jerusalem.

--J.D.