Roger Pearse

Which say different?

The context in which that fragment of Papias is quoted is with reference to the Canonical Matthew. But Papias is not saying that Canonical Matthew was not written by Matthew, is he?

I was hoping for some evidence for the proposition made: "The canonical gospels were anonymous with their names attached to them much later in the 2nd century."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no "translation issue," The Gospel of Matthew is not a translation. It was composed in Greek. It never existed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This means that it does not match the description of the book described by Papias and Irenaeus. Papias also claimed that Matthew wrote a sayings gospel and Canical Matthew is a narrative gospel not a sayings gospel. The primary problem, though, is that Matthew copied extensively from secondary sources. especially from Mark. Since there would be no reason for a primary witness to copy the majority of his account from secondary sources (Mark and Q), since the author does not claim to be a witness, since the book was written at least 50 years after the alleged resurrection in a literary language which should not have been known by a Palestinian Jew and since there is simply no internal evidence at all that the author ever met Jesus, the tradition that the book was written by any apostle at all is completely untenable.
There are currently no credible theories which could save the tradition, no.
There is no translation issue.
No it isn't. Being close in time to event does not mean that you know anything at all about it. The Church Fathers had no access to any reliable information at all about Jesus. They relied on folklore and hearsay.
Papias' personal credibility doesn't even matter. There is no reason to believe that the book he spoke of was the same as Canonical Matthew.
What theories would you have in mind?

Julian

So you are agreeing that the quote by Papias cannot be used to verify the canonical Matthew? (That's what I am reading from your comment, am I wrong?) I would agree with this. He is obviously referring to some other work, who knows what. As you can see by Iasion's list they were never referred to by name until Irenaeus. While I realize that by the standards of assigning authors to works of antiquity that is not too bad, it simply won't do given the nature of the claim. We are not dealing with a mundane and trivial historical account here. I can exapnd on this view, if necessary.

It strikes me as funny that whenever someone makes some sort of claim regarding historical practices you are always very quick to demand source evidence (and rightly so) but in this case you seem to be rejecting it. Could you explain this?
And Iasion gave you a list proving exactly that. Did you not read his post? My statement is accurate. The canonical gospels were referred to in an anonymous manner until the late 2nd century. That is a fact. That is all I said. History corroborates my claim. That doesn't mean unequivocally that it wasn't written by Matthew but the burden now shifts back to you. It has been shown that Papias cannot validate canonical Matthew. It has been shown that the first reference to the gospel by name is by Irenaeus. This is also the cholarly consensus (argument from authority, I know, not weighty but relevant since they didn't learn this from a fortune cookie paperslip.)

Now, what evidence can you present that speaks in favor of pre-Irenaeus acknowledgment of Matthean authorship?

Julian

Diogenes the Cynic

What I was questioning was the basis for your own claim that the "Patristics all say different." I don't think it's clear that Papias said anything about Canonical Matthew at all. The others based their conclusions on Papias, but I don't think there's evidence that anyone before Irenaeus identified Papias' logia and Canonical Matthew as one and the same. How do we know that Irenaeus, all by himself, did not attach the name "Matthew" to an anonymous gospel based on nothing but Papias' claim that an apostle named Matthew had written a logia?

Papias mentioned A book written by Matthew but Irenaeus (as far as we know) is the first to say that book was Canonical Matthew and there is at least no positive evidence that Canonical Matthew had that name attached to it before Irenaeus. It's possible, of course, but there's no direct evidence for it, and I actually think it would be implausible.
By Eusebius, not by Papias.
He doesn't clearly say anything at all about Canonical Matthew, that's my point. He says that Matthew wrote a sayings gospel in Hebrew but there is nothing in that description which explicitly correlates with Canonical Matthew and Papias gives no clear indication that he has any awareness at all of C. Matthew. He doesn't quote from it or anything. He doesn't identify it and say, "yeah, that was written by Matthew." He just says "Matthew wrote a book." Irenaeus said that book was C. Matthew, not Papias.
Well there is at least no positive evidence that such was the case. Luke and John probably barely even existed in the 1st century (if they're 1st century works at all). The Matthew tradition is patently spurious so I don't see how it matters much when the name got attached to the book.

Roger Pearse

Indeed. Is that the extent of the evidence offered for the claim that before then they were anonymous? Is it actually just based on that? (Again, I am asking).

I don't quite understand. A proposition has been made, in the most confident tones possible, and I am enquiring what the evidence for it is, in the eyes of those who advance it. How that becomes me ignoring evidence I am not clear -- sorry.

I have seen Iasion's post many times. Is anything else offered as evidence? -- I do not think the idea of anonymity is really derived solely from Iasion, is it?

Just to be clear what was actually said: "The canonical gospels were anonymous with their names attached to them much later in the 2nd century."

If you are saying that there is no mention of the canonical gospels by name until Irenaeus, that is indeed a fact. (Note that it was probably not a fact in 200 AD -- we lack most 2nd century literature, and we ought to remember this more often than I at least tend to do).

But to say that before then they were anonymous is quite a different statement, and we would require some evidence for it. Lack of mention of the name is not, of course, evidence that it didn't have one! (When a text really did lose its name shortly after composition, we can see this in the historical record).

(The remainder of the post addresses a different issue, and I prefer to stick to one at a time!)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Phlox Pyros

Very true. It does not help that the Roman Emperor Domitian had Christian literature destroyed. There might be more to go on today had that not happened.

Roger Pearse

Diocletian, surely?

This is possibly the case, but I'm not sure. I suspect that the depradations were less extreme than we might suppose. The real losses must occur when changes occur in technology and society, across which any given text must make its way. So when books changed from rolls to codices (modern book form), that was a 'gate' through which not all texts travelled. Unless a book was of interest in the 4th century, it wouldn't get copied into a codex but would remain on the old and obsolete medium. If not all books of a text were to hand, and all subsequent copies were made from the codex, the other books might well be lost at that time.

For instance, the compiler of the Theodosian legal code, writing around 450, complains that he was unable to obtain complete copies of earlier legal codes by Ulpian and Papinian even then. Doubtless these had perished. The fragility of the papyrus roll as against the sturdiness of the parchment book likewise militated against any text not copied into the new medium: how long would such rolls survive?

Similarly when ancient society collapsed in the west, texts that were of no interest in the appalling and worsening conditions had a much reduced chance of survival. If the only copy of a rare work was cut up for parchment, it would then be lost.

The main factor in all losses of literature is simply the collapse of the society that gave it birth. In the renaissance Pietro Bembo estimated that 99% of all ancient literature is lost. I know that Nigel Wilson (of "Scribes and Scholars (or via: amazon.co.uk)") agrees with that.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Greetings,

For reference, here is a (nearly) complete list of the references to the word "Gospel(s)" up to Irenaeus late 2nd C. :

Paul, 50-60CE, 60+ references

e.g. 1 Corinthians : 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel--not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn't be made void.



1 Clement, 90-100CE, 2 references

Ch. 42 The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.

Ch. 47 Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?



1 Peter, 80-110CE, 3 references :

1:12 To them it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced to you through those who preached the Gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent out from heaven; which things angels desire to look into.

4:6 For to this end was the Gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit.

4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God. If it begins first with us, what will happen to those who don't obey the Gospel of God?



Revelation, 90-95CE, 1 reference :

14:6 I saw an angel flying in mid heaven, having an eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation, tribe, language, and people.



The Sophia of Jesus Christ, c.100CE?, 2 refereneces :

Then Bartholomew said to him: "How (is it that) <he> was designated in the Gospel 'Man' and 'Son of Man'? To which of them, then, is this Son related?"

These are the things the blessed Savior said, and he disappeared from them. Then all the disciples were in great, ineffable joy in the spirit from that day on. And his disciples began to preach the Gospel of God, the eternal, imperishable Spirit.



1 Timothy, 100-150CE, 1 reference :

1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully, 1:9 as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and insubordinate, ... and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; 1:11 according to the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.



2 Timothy, 100-150CE, 3 references :

1:8 Therefore don't be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner; but endure hardship for the Gospel according to the power of God,

1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.

2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my Gospel, 2:9 in which I suffer hardship to the point of chains as a criminal. But God's word isn't chained.



Acts, 80-130, 7 references :

e.g. 8:25 They therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the Gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.



Barnabas, 80-120CE, 3 references :

But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
...
To these He gave authority to preach the Gospel, being twelve in number, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.
...
And again, the prophet saith, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the humble: He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to announce the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompense; to comfort all that mourn."


The Didache, 50-120CE, 4 references :


Ch. 8 Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever..

Ch. 11 But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.

Ch.15 Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in
the Gospel of our Lord.



The Preaching of Peter, 100-150CE :

I chose out you twelve, judging you to be disciples worthy of me, whom the Lord willed, and thinking you faithful apostles; sending you unto the world to preach the Gospel to men throughout the world,



2 Clement, 130-160CE, 1 reference :

For the Lord saith in the Gospel, "If ye have not kept that which was small, who will commit to you the great? For I say unto you, that he that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much."



The Apocalypse of Peter, c. 200CE, 1 reference :

Declare unto us what are the signs of thy coming and of the end of the world, that we may perceive and mark the time of thy coming and instruct them that come after us, unto whom we preach the word of thy Gospel, and whom we set over (in) thy church, that they when they hear it may take heed to themselves and mark the time of thy coming.



The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE , 1 reference :

1 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.


The Gospel of Mary, 120-180CE, 3 references :

4:37 Go then and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom.

5:1 But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

9:9 That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the Gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.



Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE, 1 reference :

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.



Ignatius to Eph,, 130-160CE, 1 reference :

Ch. 12 : Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.


Ignatius to Phil., 130-160CE, 6 references :

Ch. 5 : But your prayer to God shall make me perfect, that I may attain to that portion which through mercy has been allotted me, while I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church. And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ, being holy men, worthy of love and admiration, having had witness borne to them by Jesus Christ, and being reckoned along with in the Gospel of the common hope.
...
Ch.8 : When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity;
...
Ch. 9 : But the Gospel possesses something transcendent [above the former dispensation], viz., the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the Gospel is the perfection of immortality. All these things are good together, if ye believe in love.


Ignatius to Smyr., 130-160CE, 2 references :

Ch. 5 : Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured.


Ch. 7 : It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons,
and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.



Polycarp to the Philippians, 110-140CE, 1 reference :

Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us].


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

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.


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

Ch. 10 : "This is what we are amazed at," said Trypho, "but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them."
...
Ch. 12 : The Lawgiver is present, yet you do not see Him; to the poor the Gospel is preached, the blind see, yet you do not understand. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh.
...
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.'


Justin Martyr's On The Resurrection, 150-160CE, 1 reference :

Ch. 10 : Considering, therefore, even such arguments as are suited to this world, and finding that, even according to them, it is not impossible that the flesh be regenerated; and seeing that, besides all these proofs, the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh,



The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 150-160CE, 4 references :

For almost all the events that happened previously [to this one], took place that the Lord might show us from above a martyrdom becoming the Gospel.
...
Wherefore, brethren, we do not commend those who give themselves up [to suffering], seeing the Gospel does not teach so to do.
...
He was not merely an illustrious teacher, but also a pre-eminent martyr, whose martyrdom all desire to imitate, as having been altogether consistent with the Gospel of Christ.
...
We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ;



Fragments from Theodotus, 150-180CE, 2 references :

He cited as a proof to all, how, when the angels give glad tidings to the barren, they introduce souls before conception. And in the Gospel "the babe leapt" as a living thing.


Anti-Montanist (from Eusebius H.E.), 193CE, 2 references :

Eusebius H.E. Ch. 16:2 - A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them, first intimates that he had contended with them in oral controversies. He commences his work in this manner:
"Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, been urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called after Miltiades, I have hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New Testament, which it is impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the Gospel, either to increase or to diminish."



The Acts of Paul, 150-200CE, 2 references :

40 But Thecla yearned after Paul and sought him, sending about in all places; and it was told her that he was at Myra. And she took young men and maids, and girded herself, and sewed her mantle into a cloak after the fashion of a man, and departed into Myra, and found Paul speaking the word of God, and went to him. But he when he saw her and the people that were with her was amazed, thinking in himself: Hath some other temptation come upon her? But she perceived it, and said to him: I have received the washing, 0 Paul; for he that hath worked together with thee in the Gospel hath worked with me also unto my baptizing.
...
34 If, then, ye receive any other doctrine, GOD SHALL BE WITNESS AGAINST YOU;
AND let no man trouble me, 35 for I bear these bonds that I may win Christ, and I therefore bear his marks in my body that I may attain unto the resurrection of the dead. And whoso receiveth (abideth in) the rule which he hath received by the blessed prophets and the holy Gospel, shall receive a recompense from the Lord,



The Acts of Peter and Paul, 150-200CE, 1 reference :

And having gone forth from Baias, they went to Gaitas, and there he taught tim word of God. And he stayed there three days in the house of Erasmus, whom Peter sent from Rome to teach the Gospel of God.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE, 1 reference :

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.



The Muratorian Canon, 170-200CE, 3 references :

The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.
...
The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John's, one of the disciples.
...
And so to the faith of believers there is no discord even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels.



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.


Claudius Apollinaris Fragments, 160-180CE, 1 reference :

There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame-it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law, and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them.


Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE, 1 reference :

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.


Melito of Sardis, c. 170CE, 3 references :

The finger of the Lord-the Holy Spirit, by whose operation the tables of the law in Exodus are said to have been written; and in the Gospel: "If I by the finger of God cast out demons" The fingers of the Lord-The lawgiver Moses, or the prophets.
...
As in Habakkuk: "He good and measured the earth;and in the Gospel: "Jesus stood, and bade him be called" that is, the blind man.
...
The knowledge of the Lord-that which makes men to know Him. To Abraham He says: "Now I know that thou fearest the Lord; "that is, I have made thee to know. The ignorance of God is His disapproval. In the Gospel: "I know you not."


Polycrates of Ephesus Fragments, c.190CE, 1 reference :

These all kept the passover on the fourteenth. day of the month, in accordance with the Gospel, without ever deviating from it, but keeping to the rule of faith.


Pseudo Sybillines Book I, c.200CE?, 1 reference :

460 Unto the light, and show his form to men
And teach all things, ascending in the clouds
Unto the house of heaven shall he go
Leaving the world a Gospel convenant.
And in his name shall blossom a new shoot


Theophilus to Autolycus, c.180CE, 4 references :

Ch. 12 : Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.
...
And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
...
And the Gospel says: "Love your enemies, and pray for them that despitefully use you. For if ye love them who love you, what reward have ye? This do also the robbers and the publicans."


---------
So,
There is a huge number of references to the "Gospel(s)" before we see any names attached to them, many as written works, some explicitly naming them ("the Gospel as it is called", "which are also called Gospels".)

These many uses show a clear trajectory :
* initially, gospel informally means the Christian message
* then, Gospel formally means an anonymous written work usually singular, (then plural, but not numbered)
* finally, the Gospels are numbered (Tatian?) and named (Irenaeus.)

If Irenaeus is indeed later than c.185, then the naming could conceivably be as late as the turn of the century or so.


Iasion

Phlox Pyros

Yup. That's the one. I always get'em mixed up. I was thinking that Frend (or via: amazon.co.uk) said the loses in Christian literature were severe in certain places and pretty wide-spread. It's been a while since I read it though.

Good point.

Julian

The fact that they mention the gospels but do not attache names is evidence. Being evidence from silence it is not the strongest, to be sure. We do not have anyone saying directly that they were anonymous thus conferring upon us a positive claim but I fail to see a reason why anyone would explicitly say so. I also find it curious that the names become attached just as apostolic tradition acquired significance. With the textual and theological corruptions of the second century it is curious that just then works, which had previously never been referred to by their authors, suddenly acquires authority in a manner useful to combat 'heresies.'

So, to answer your question. It is based on the fact that they are referred to without names (i.e. potentially anonymous, even likely) and that that state of affairs changes in 180 or so. We must look at the evidence we have. We can speculate that they may have been known by their current names before Irenaeus but that would be speculation. We know, by the evidence we have available, that they were referred to anonymously before then, that is a fact despite it being fom silence. It is surely better evidence than speculation seeing how we have so little to work with. While one cannot make the assertion of anonymity with great certainty it must be the rational position until positive evidence emerges.
Well, the tone of the proposition may be overly confident, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is the most reasonable position given the current evidence. To clarify further, we have no evidence of authorship until Irenaeus and anonymous references before that. It may not be great evidence but it is still evidence. You seem to be resorting to specualtion that the names may have been known before Irenaeus, that papyrus to parchment may have eliminated evidence and so forth. This may all be true, I grant you that, but you cannot present evidence better than that which has been presented in favor of anonymity.
What else could it be based other than a direct claim of anonymity from a pre-180 source?
Sure, but it becomes speculation again. If they had literature confirming the apostolic nature of the writings why didn't they cite it? Surely, Irenaeus could have relied upon literary quotes in Adv. Her. to bolster his attacks on, say, the Cainites or Carpocratians when he says that their views are from outside scripture and that they do not adhere to what has been passed down from the disciples. He quotes from 'people who know' like Papias. If he had a better source why does he not use it? The patristic writings show no sign of there being better evidence than what we have today. Why doesn't Origen use better material to refute Origen if he had some? Your appeal to lost 2nd century literature is speculation and fairly weak speculation at that.
The evidence clearly points to anonymous gospels given the state of the evidence, weak as it is, i.e. negative evidence. To postulate something else, being speculation, is even weaker.

Julian