Roger Pearse

That's right. "Apostles and apostolic men", as Tertullian puts it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Greetings,

Not so.
The title were later additions and are merely CLAIMS of authorship - which do not stand up to scrutiny.


A large number of references to the Gospel(s) by the early Christians make NO mention of any titles even into the mid-late 2nd century :


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.


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.


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,


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, 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 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.


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."


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."


Apart from the controversial comments of Papias, the Gospels were not given author's name until late 2nd century.


Iasion

Roger Pearse

For the benefit of anyone reading, I will repeat the comment that I have made several times now in response to this.

Quite why that means that they had no names we are not told.

Note that the apostles are not named either. Perhaos this proves that they had no names either?

Quite how this proposition follows from the incidental mention of the texts or the Gospel itself we are not told.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

Well, Papias was early 2nd century, so the lack of attribution for the next fifty years is just a bad argument from silence.

Stephen

pob14

So what is an "apostolic man?" Serious question; I have no idea.

hatsoff

Roger is correct when he says that both the manuscripts and the church fathers identify the Gospel authors. I don't think there is a single Gospel manuscript in existence which is complete yet makes no mention of the traditional author. And while there may be numerous references to the Gospels which do not identify the traditional authors, Papias, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus all do.

Diogenes the Cynic

Papias clearly wasn't referring to any Canonical Gospels, so he can't be relied on for attribution anyway.

JoeWallack

JW:
As has been indicated here Mainstream Christian Bible Scholarship now Confesses to us (after 2,000 years) that the Gospel author is a Miss A. Non. The better question here is:

Who did not write the Gospels?

In Order to answer this question we need to consider two factors which sadly are still largely Ignored by Mainstream Christian Bible Scholarship:

1) Impossible Claims

2) The Portrayal of those who supposedly knew Jesus

Regarding 1), since the Gospels present Impossible claims they most likely were not written by Eyewitnesses since no eyewitness would have Witnessed the Impossible. Thus What was written becomes exponentially more important than who wrote it since we can be certain that Impossible claims are false no matter who the author was. Trying to posture that in this situation one only needs to consider the usual standards for Who and can ignore the What is Deceptive if not outright Dishonest. Mainstream Christian Bible Scholarship is officially Neutral on the subject of Impossible claims but being Neutral here is not Science/Scholarship, it's Theology.

Regarding 2) "Mark", the original Gospel, has a primary theme that the supposed eyewitnesses to Jesus, "The Disciples", did not understand Jesus and were not qualified to teach about Jesus. Logically than, this Gospel was not written by an eyewitness since a primary purpose is to criticize the eyewitnesses. "Matthew" and "Luke" flip the primary theme so that their "The Disciples" do understand Jesus (finally) but in Order to do so they still have to use "Mark" as their priMary source. The Implication is that for "Matthew" and "Luke" to still have to use "Mark" as their primary source regarding "eyewitnesses" even though "Mark" had the opposite primary theme they literally had no access what so ever to real eyewitnesses.

Thus, in answer to The question of (Jesus) Life:

Who did not write the Gospels?

The answer is:

Eyewitnesses

and not 42 eyewitnesses.



Joseph

"You've been Wikied!" - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Diogenes the Cynic

hey're not. And because they're not, then it can't be said that the authors give any indication as to their own identity, nor do any of them make the slightest claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus
To be clear, Roger, my claim is that the titles do not represent internal evidence as to the authors' identities. I'm saying that the content of the writings do not support -- and are often at odds with -- their authorship attributions. You say that it is not uncommon for other manuscripts from antiquity to have no other authorial attribution but whatever is on the title page, and that's true, but so what? A name is just a name. No more assumptions are necessarily made about any other attributed author for any other given manuscript, and sometimes attributions are still treated skeptically. Pseudoepigraphy was not confined to early Christian writings.
Aside from the fact that we can't really establish that we have any testimony from anyone who knew any apostles (other than Paul), the issue is that the descriptions given by Papias do not match the Canonicals (and the content of the Canonicals does not support the authorship traditions).
Scholarly eyes beg to differ.
Why must there be some relationship?
This would be perfectly stated if you were talking about Papias.

Understand that the "proposition" is not being made by me but by you. You are the one who wishes to assign a positive identification to an unknown author. Papias does not support that identification. Neither does the internal content of the text.

You haven't even commented on some of the most problematic roadblocks for the authorship traditions. Like Markan dependance for Matthew, for instance, or the aposunagogos anachronism in John.
This just sounds like handwaving to me. If nothing else, a data point like Markan dependancy at least shows a lack of positive support for apostolic authorship. The bottom line is that authors are unknown. Apostolic authorship is a hypothesis requiring evidence. The positive evidence doesn't exist and in some cases the evidence contradicts what should be expected. The data simply doesn't exist to get us off the dime from "unknown" to "apostolic" and the evidence which can be inferred internally from the text all points away from the authors being primary witnesses of Jesus.

Amaleq13

I thought the worth of an argument from silence was established by the likelihood of something other than silence?

If the "tradition" attributed to Papias was well-known and/or well-established, would there not be a rather strong likelihood that someone else would repeat such a pedigree of authorship?