LogicandReason

The names first appear in 180 CE in Irenaeus' Against Heresies. Eusebius tries to further explain the names and origin in the 4th century. This is motivated by Constantine's effort to shore up an orthodox cult.

LogicandReason

Paul tells you where his 'gospel' comes from in Gal 1:11-12...it is all revelation. Later in this chapter and on into chapter 2 Paul tells you all about going to Jerusalem and meeting the boys there...with no indication that they knew of followed an earthly Jesus.

Nice post from the step-father of Jesus.....

aa5874

I think you made an error. The post was actually made by Andrew Criddle.

It should be :

aa5874

But if Jesus did exist, he could only have been human.

There is something wrong with the writer Paul.

If Jesus was only spiritual why did the writer Paul claim to have revelations from Jesus about activities on earth on the night Jesus was betrayed and talking to the apostles?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - The writer Paul got information about the historical Jesus from the mythological Christ.

angelo

Let's also not forget that a good many of Paul's letters were much later forgeries.

Roger Pearse

Evidence for these claims is not found in the historical record.

We need to be a bit careful. The gospels do not "first appear" at this date with names (if we claim this, we assert that they never appeared in any other literature by name before this date; since it is lost, this is unlikely). Instead we should say that, in the extant early Christian literature, the first surviving text to mention the gospels by name is Irenaeus. Since 99% of ancient literature is lost, and little early Christian writing exists between the NT and Irenaeus (and almost no theological or bible-study literature), implicit arguments from absence should be avoided. Irenaeus, whose teacher knew the apostle John personally, writes as if the canonical status of the four was of long standing.

The idea that ancient texts are anonymous unless a witness appears to them which explicitly names the author in the first 150 years of their existence is a curious one, which an elementary knowledge of the transmission of classical texts would call into question.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

But, ancient texts have survived or copies of ancient texts have survived that do not mention any writers named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as authors of any Gospels, before the writing of Irenaeus.

The writings of Justin Martyr, although making many references to passages found in the present day Gospels, did not mention any writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Justin on all occassions referred to the writings as only "Memoirs".

Another surving ancient text or copy of an ancient text is Tatian's "Diatessaron" where no author is given for the original stories even though the Diatessaron appears to very similar to the present day Gospels.

It should be noted that although the Diatessaron is compilation of what appears to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the genealogies are missing in the Diatessaron.

Using available or surviving information, it can be deduced that the naming of the Gospels, possibly with alterations, was done after the writings of Tatian, or sometime around or after the last quarter of the 2nd century.

show_no_mercy

I'm not sure about the long standing tradition of four gospels. The tradition of only using four gospels couldn't have been earlier than the penning and circulation of John's gospel, which is an early 2nd century document. So the "tradition" might not have been around for more than 50 years. "Against Heresies" 3.11.7 says that many proto-Christians use only one gospel while 3.11.9 says that some used more than four. If there was a solid tradition of only using four gospels, Irenaeus wouldn't have used that absurd logic to proclaim that Christians should only be using four gospels.

Also, there's no indication about which "John" that Irenaeus' teacher Polycarp knew. John the Apostle might be different from John the Presbyter which might be different from John the "Disciple".

Roger Pearse

50 years is quite possible. The idea that John was written after 100 AD is not found in the historical record, tho.

I appreciate the references. Irenaeus gives no list of Christians doing these things; only of groups whom the Christians reject.

Only one is a reference to the Ebionites.

"So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true."

That Valentinians invented new gospels in the latter half of the second century:

"But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing "the Gospel of Truth," though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth."

Appealing to the fact that these alone were transmitted from the apostles? Seems like reasonable logic to me.

Rather more than for those who freely describe Marcion, Valentinus and Ebionites as proto-Christians, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

He refers to them once iirc as the memoirs of the apostles. He doesn't name the apostles; does he, on the same logic, suppose that the apostles had no names either? He doesn't discuss authorship, as I recall.

I do not see how this signifies that the texts he used had no authors, tho.

Indeed, although the relevance of this is unclear to me.

Not from this, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse