RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts
January 30, 2016 at 9:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2016 at 10:08 pm by Mudhammam.)
(January 30, 2016 at 8:23 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Did you know that in the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest "complete" New Testament (it actually contains two additional books), the "Gospels" do not include any description of the Resurrection?I'm guessing nobody knew that because, well, it doesn't appear to be true. Unless by "the 'Gospels'", you simply meant Mark's Gospel, which is missing 16:9-20.
With respect to the OP, none of the Gospels show up until at least the second century, at which point there was plenty of time for different names to be ascribed to the traditional, and non-traditional ("The Preaching of Peter", "Apocalypse of Peter", "Apocalypse of James," "The Acts of John," "The Acts of Paul," "The Traditions of Matthew", etc.) texts, all of which were assumed to be authoritative as no universal canon had yet been arranged. It's not surprising that figures who were perceived as important in the early church - including Luke, Mark, Barnabas, Hermas, etc. - would have their names ascribed to a work, regardless if they were the actual author or not. This would lend credibility to the ideas in the work (which various factions at this point were combatively vying for) or it could allow the work to present itself as expressing ideas that at the very least were to be understood as consistent with the thought of said author.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza