Rick Sumner

Or that everyone knew well that more popular figures didn't write it, and attributing it to a less acclaimed disciple was preferable to not attributing it at all.

Regards,
Rick

Vinnie

Yah, thats the counter. I posted that in the thread I linked above:



1. That can easily be modified. Maybe knowledge at the time would not allow a Gospel to be attributed to Peter and Mark was the best way to get closest to him?

2. Mark was a common name. Maybe an unknown Christian wrote GMark and his name was amalgamated with John Mark??? This “elegant solution” could help explain the internal issues (e.g. geography errors etc).

3. As Brown notes in his Intro to the NT: Maybe Peter was an “archetypal figure identified with Jerusalem apostolic tradition and with a preaching that combined Jesus' Teaching, deeds, and passion.”

As Brown noted in a footnote 85 on p. 160: “Several passages in Paul indicate that historically Peter was known as a preacher and perhaps a font of tradition about Jesus (a combination of I Cor 15:3,5,11; one interpretation of Gal 1.18). Later Acts personifies Peter as the preacher of the Jerusalem community. The ecumencial book PNT contends that after his lifetime Peter became an idealized figure for certain functions in the church. II Pet 1:13-19 embodies the picture of Peter as the preserver of the apostolic memory.”

As Brown further noted (pp. 160-161): “Papias could, then, be reporting in a dramatized and simplified way that in his writing about Jesus, Mark reorganized and rephrased a content derived from a standard type of preaching that was considered apostolic. That could explain two frequently held positions about Gospel relationships: first, that the Marcan Gospel was so acceptable within a decade as to be known and approved as a guide by Matthew and Luke writing in different areas; second, that John could be independent of mark and still have similarities to it in outline and some contents. Many would dismiss entirely the Papias tradition; but the possibilities just raised could do some justice to the fact that ancient traditions often have elements of truth in garbled form.”

4. Papias or the Elder were simply mistaken and the tradition spread from there.

5. John Mark actually authored the Gospel.

I know one thing about the author of Mark for sure. He/she wasn't writing down the eyewitness memories of Peter. That was demonstrated in the thread I linked.

Vinnie

Roger Pearse

I'm sure you can see the fallacy here as well as I. The existence of fake dollars does not demonstrate the non-existence of dollars; rather it testifies to it. The existence of false attributions does not demonstrate the uselessness of manuscript attributions.

Turning Iasion's question around, we might ask why, then, is the coptic Gospel of Thomas not anonymous? Surely not because there is a heading in the 4th century coptic text? After all, there is only one reference to it, and that not certain, in all patristic literature (in Hippolytus).

Or ... is the argument that all texts called gospels are anonymous? Was it something in the water, that as soon as someone called a book a 'gospel' his name fell off the top of it? <chuckle>

Before people start trying to invent ingenious explanations, I think we may as well all accept that the game can be played indefinitely. But once we start trying to find out what is right, rather than trying to rationalise what we wish to believe, I think that all these sorts of arguments collapse.

Truth does not consist either of whatever story the facts may be wrapped around, or of whatever position someone chooses to adopt and then demands to be refuted. Surely?

Just my humble opinion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

Just a guess on my part, but maybe because it names its author in the way that anonymous Gospels do not?

'These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.'

I wonder if Christians would demand acceptance of authorship, if say , Matthew, had started with the words 'This is what Matthew wrote down'?

Doctor X

Just as an aside, what I find interesting is that a tradition of authorship did not exist for ancient texts--even "forgeries."

Whoever wrote Mk, for example, felt no need to write, "as written by" or to attribute the work to someone important: "these things were witnessed by Guno the Flatulent, belov'd by Junior."

As others have notices, Lk takes a "pedestrian" stance in that he addresses his readers in both Lk and Acts, admits he is not a witness, but feels no need to identify himself.

I wonder if it was because the intended audience knew the author. If that is true, what happened to the tradition of the author?

Indeed, NO ONE, not even writers of "secret" texts, ever thought of claiming Junior himself wrote something--okay, maybe they thought their bowels would rot if they went that far, but some writers were happy to forge Paul. Okay . . . by that time, perhaps "finding" a "Letter of Junior" would have seem suspicious!

Did writers then not mind the controversy. If you believe the Synoptic Solution--and, sorry to some posters, but I find it has the best evidence--Mt and Lk were happy to use Mk and rewrite him. This did not seem "a big deal." They preserved what seemed useful to them and wrote what else they wanted . . . or used other sources we do not have.

It seems to me a later tradition to asign a "great author" to the text.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

Doc X,

But why did they use GMk as their primary source? Presumably, they could have access to other gospels or oral traditions (M-Tradition and L-Tradition according to Streeter) from which to base their gospels. Why would these two authors use the same Gospel (or perhaps two versions of that gospel) as their base? Was GMk the prominent gospel of the time? Why? What made it a prominent, or preeminent, gospel? If it had been believed to have been written by a biblical personality, Mark for instance, then perhaps that's the reason for its importance? Maybe the tradition of its special authorship extended all the way back to the 80's C.E. when Matt was starting to compose his gospel.

Doctor X

Secular Pinoy:

Man, if I had an answer to any of those questions I would be too busy sitting on my chair of some pompous academic department to even consider questions from "mere mortals!"

I do not know.

Clearly Mk was "popular enough" for Mt and Lk to have had it--in some version! It may not have been "revered" enough to prevent them from altering it. Similarly, "Q" was "popular enough" for Mt and Lk to use it . . . but not enough to survive?

Who were the individual writer's intended audiences?

Some scholars think Mk used a "passion source" . . . others think he may have "made it up." Oye!

Part of the "charm" of OT and NT scholarship is answers really do not exist!

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

Charming, indeed. But speculations can be fun too, just as long as it's backed with a modicum of evidence.

Vinnie

d00d, l+ was 4 j0k3

Smile

Vinnie

Steven Carr

Plenty of ancient texts name their authors.

Why then does Eusebius claim to have letters written to and from Jesus?