avi

Roger, I do not share your opinion on this question.
To me, perhaps too naively, "evidence of anonymity" is found in studying Justin Martyr, for he makes no explicit reference to Paul, nor of the synoptic Gospels, nor John.

I think his reference to the "apostles" suggests anonymity. Perhaps it does not PROVE anonymity, but I feel comfortable asserting that Martyr's summary SUGGESTS anonymity.

best wishes,
avi

show_no_mercy

If you consider my rejoinder "irrelevant", then you probably don't understand the underlying logic of the point you were trying to make.

Kapyong

Gday all,

Nonsense.

There is considerable evidence - all the earliest versions mention the Gospels WITHOUT names - even when specifically saying what they are called :


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 SINGULAR un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels, and the lateness of the naming.



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, even though Justin explicitly tells us what they were named ("which are called Gospels".) If Justin knew of any author's names he would CERTAINLY have given them.



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's name is given.



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 - but no author's name is 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 author's name is given.


When we have authors specifically telling us what they were called (" 'Gospels' as they are called") that is clear POSITIVE evidence of what they were called.

It is NOT an argument from silence,
but an argument from evidence.


Frankly Roger, you should be ashamed of yourself - preaching false nonsense to someone who came here to learn.


K.

Toto

I thought that the best evidence for the idea that the gospels were anonymous was that Irenaeus had to figure out who wrote them based on internal evidence - by matching the "we passages" in Acts with Paul's accounts of his companions, for instance.

Petergdi

Is this meant to be a joke? Or do you not notice that Aristides is conflating gospel = "the message that Jesus taught " with gospel = "the story of Jesus". The gospel (first sense) was preached by Jesus for a short time among his followers. The conflation of the two senses makes it read a bit oddly, but is obviously what is going on. Read the whole section in Aristides and it will be clear enough.

Peter.

Kapyong

Gday,

Nonsense.

Aristides is referring to a written book - "if you will READ therein".

He says this (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. ) is taught
"...in the Gospel".

Did Jesus teach 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. "
No.

But the Gospel DOES.


He is clearly referring to a written work, nothing to do with what Jesus preached at all.


K.

Petergdi

Yes, but the "short time" bit was about the "preached" gospel - not the thing you can read. Aristides views the two senses as practically the same thing - the gospel that Jesus preached was about the kingdom, and Christ is the king - so they get conflated, but he is certainly aware of a "preached" gospel.

Your reading cannot possibly work. Read the whole section and you will see that the preaching dates from the time of Christ to the present. I'm not sure of the grammar of the original, whether "short time" is more natural to read as "a short time ago" or as "for a short time" which may have been some time ago. It hardly matters, since the same section of Aristides' Apology makes it clear that the message has been preached since the time of Christ and the Twelve.

Peter.

Petergdi

What part of Irenaeus are you thinking of? He seems to me to constantly treat the traditional authors of the gospels as already well known to his audience.

Peter.

Toto

There is a Previous thread on Apology of Aristides that should be of interest.

mountainman

Is this the date that the wretched Eusebius was first treated as Constantine's minister for fictional "Jesus Propaganda"? Citation please. Readers beware! Never even think of considering any apologetic argument until the source references are cited.


In any event, to return to the OP, since Eusebius is the undisputed Editor-In-Chief of the at least 50 Constantine "Bibles" published shortly after Nicaea (because "Church Business" was rising rapidly as Constantine destroyed the opposition churches and Graeco-Roman religions) it is in fact a corollary that the initial "Christian Canon" was set in place physically by that momentous, lavish, extremely authoritative and widespread publication. That Eusebius was therefore the "Editor-ini-Chief" of the first physically widely-published new testament canon.

All Christian denominations follow a slightly revised canon that Eusebius employed, and which was first historically listed about 40 years after Nicaea in the writings of Athanasius, around about the time the orthodox recovered from their supression by Emperor Julian.

The orthodox church recovery from Julian's censures, invectives and imperial legislations was at least two-fold. Firstly Emperor Julian was convinced that the entire "Fabrication of the Christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness" and the three books he wrote "Against the Christians" were raising severe authenticity issues with the church - and these books had to be taken out of circulation and refuted. Secondly, the Christians had to rename themselves back to "Christians" since the Emperor Julian had legislated that they were henceforth to be known under the name of "Galilaeans". There is a history to this term via Josephus.

Interested readers might like to do a string search within the Nag Hammadi library archive for the occurrence of this term "wickedness or its derivatives.