blastula

I read in an Ehrman book that when titles were first given to gospels, there was a variety of different titles given, but it didn't say if that meant different authors were attributed to the same gospel, or whether it was variations of a title but still the same author.

My question is, when titles were given to a gospel, did the titles always agree on authorship? Or were there any competing attributions?

hatsoff

The Gospels never (to our knowledge) had different names physically attached to them. All extant versions with their first verses intact include titles which ascribe them to their respective namesakes. Ehrman was referring to the variety of different forms of attribution. For example, many versions of Matthew are titled, simply, "According to Matthew," while others have a longer title, "The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew"--and everything in between.

blastula

Thanks, I have a follow up question then. Is it known whether the attributions in the titles can be traced to a single source or whether they were independently given. Like, did one guy entitle the Matthew gospel as "Matthew" and then others followed along, or did separate people give the Matthew title to that gospel?

show_no_mercy

This is the earliest extant writing that we have that names the gospels, which was written around 170 - 180 CE. Irenaeus' source is said to be a Christian named Papias c. 100 CE who wrote that there was a certain "sayings gospel" written by "Mark, a disciple and interpreter of Peter" but he says that Mark wrote down what Peter would preach in no particular order (thus not a narrative like our current Mark).

And also Papias says that a "Matthew" wrote down a Hebrew gospel, but our current Matthew doesn't show any signs of being written in Hebrew but shows signs of being written in Greek. Though the Ebionites supposedly used a Hebrew written (assumed, since their name more than likely derives from Hebrew) version of Matthew but without the birth narrative since they didn't believe in the virgin birth (which, ironically, is one of the signs that our current Matthew was written in Greek).

Irenaeus is the first person to write that our "John" was written by John the Beloved Disciple. However, another Christian sect in the 2nd century derogatoraly called the "Alogi" said that Cerinthus was the actual author of the Logos gospel and that it wasn't canonical - hence why Epiphanus calls them "alogi". But Epiphanus wrote his "Medicine Cabinet" against heresies in IIRC the fourth century so it's kinda heresay. Then again, just about everything in early Christianity is heresay since we don't have any original manuscripts.

But, Cerinthus (according to Irenaeus) was schooled in Alexandra, Egypt (or the "wisdom of the Egyptians") - the same place where Philo established philosophy schools and his Logos doctrine, and Irenaeus says that John wrote his gospel to counter Cerinthus' gospel. An odd coincidence.

Also Irenaeus is the first person to say that "Luke" was written by a companion of Paul, but it seems as though the earliest use of "Luke" was by Marcion (or possibly Justin Martyr) who supposedly held Paul as the sole authentic teacher of the gospel of Christ. But neither Marcion nor Justin Martyr call our Luke "according to Luke", I think Marcion called it "the gospel of the Lord" and Justin seemed to refer to Mark, Matthew, and Luke in one collection called "Memoirs of the Apostles" without naming individual authors.

It's all really fuzzy and heresay prior to Irenaeus.

Atheos

Which means the subject matter pretty much stayed fuzzy and heresay after Irenaeus. His opinion about what happened is about as useful as mine would be about something I heard from my great grandpappy about something his great grandpappy told him about something that happened in East Tennessee in 1860.

Might be the best we have, but it's a far cry from the proclaimed "Four Eyewitness Testimonies" often boasted about from pulpits.

mountainman

There were the Anti-Marcionite Prologues

Huon

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/an..._prologues.htm

Of course, later than Marcion, or else, what a miracle...

JoeWallack

JW:
This is wrong and why we need Roger Pearse and JP Holding to track down the source of this misinformation on the Internet. Where the hell are they when you really need them?:

1) Marcion is the first attributed user of a canonical Gospel ("Luke") and OCD confesses to us that he did not attribute authorship. Tertullian gives the OCD thinking that what good is a Gospel without an attributed source and the naming game is on.

2) In the middle second century the Gospels are thought of as group efforts. Justin refers to memoirs of the Apostles with no mention of a "Mark" or "Luke". His protege, Tatian, combines all four, and the title is not according to "Mark", "Matthew", "Luke" and "John". We have Gospels that claim to be a group effort.

3) The Gospel of Peter is considered authoritative so presumably at this time there was no "Mark" (interpreter of Peter) Gospel. Too many Peters.

4) Ignoreneaus finds Papias and attributes a Gospel to "Mark". The Gospel of Peter is still considered authoritative so that's why it's "Mark" and not Peter. Gradually OCD decides that this Canonical Gospel is the official Peter so the claim of Petrine contribution increases and the Gospel of Peter must decrease. See:

The Tale Wagging The Dogma. Which "Mark" Wrote "Mark"? A Dear John Letter

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown


Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome


Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome


Fourth "Mark"

Source: Jerome

Date: c. 400

Author: Peter

Description of "Mark": Scribe

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome


Fifth "Mark"

Source: Hippolytus/Fake Hippolytus

Date: c. 202 - c. 19th century (We'll see how the Assertian fits the timelieon at the end)

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Jesus

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome


Sixth "Mark"

Source: Augustine

Date: c. 400

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote after "Matthew" and before "Luke"

Author Source: "Matthew"

Authority: ?

Location: ?


Seventh "Mark" (Glaucias)

Source: Clement referring to Basilides

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Author or at least source of information: Glaucias

Description of "Mark": Interpreter of Peter

Timing: Contemporary to orthodox claim of "Mark" as interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Peter

Authority: ?


Eighth "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter but not the Cephas (Peter) that Paul knew.

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?

At one extreme we have "Mark" as just a scribe who writes down what Peter dictates. Why call it "Mark"? Even if "Mark" wrote from memory, why call it "Mark"? We also have the tradition that "Mark" was a disciple of Jesus. If so, than why would "Mark" have a source of Peter? And is this Peter, whatever his contribution here, the same as Paul's Cephas? Obviously OCD started with the position that the author was "Mark" (due to Papias) but was free to choose different "Marks".

"Mark" already has a title anyway:

Mark 1

A perfectly good title. Why would we even expect another title?

5) OCD claims that "Matthew" was originally written in the Hebrew's language but isn't sure if that would be Hebrew or Aramaic. What would the title of that been? Probably not "Matthew". OCD also tells us that the Ebionites referred to "Matthew" "According to the Hebrews".

6) OCD tells us that the Alogi attributed "John" to Cerinthus.

7) Internal evidence indicates that all four were originally anonymous.

8) Authority tells us that all four were originally anonymous.

9) Originally the Gospels were stand alone. No reason to distinguish them from other Gospels. When the Gospels were Canonized, that was when they needed to be distinguished. Exactly what we see from the External evidence. No mention of individual attributed names until Irenaeus who is the first known to promote a Canon.

10) Thus the claim that as far as we know the Canonical Gospels never had other than the Canonical names written on them is false and misleading and Messengers Pearse and Holding have a lot of work to do here:

1 - We have evidence that "Mark" was attributed to Glaucias.

2 - We have evidence that "Matthew" was titled "According to the Hebrews".

3 - We have evidence that "Luke" was unattributed.

4 - We have evidence that "John" was attributed to Cerinthus (but by the non-users of "John").

This likely helps explain why we generally don't have extant for the early centuries. The early manuscripts either did not attribute or attributed to a non-Canonical. Exorcise them!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

aa5874

These 4 points are not really evidence, they are claims which may be false.

These points should probably be stated as follows:

1. There are claims that "Mark" was atrributed to Glaucias.

2. There are claims that "Matthew" was titled "According to the Hebrews".

3. There are claims that "Luke" was unattributed.

4. There are claims that "John" was attributed to Cerinthus (but by non-users of John).

All these claims (1-4) may be false.

It must never be forgotten that the church writers have provided erroneous information about the character called Jesus and the date and chronology of the writings found in the NT.

blastula

What's OCD?