The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[athrock]

We would agree (I think) that the later copies of the book now known as Matthew would clearly state, "The Gospel According to Matthew". But if the book was published anonymously

On that count it was...we -don't- know who published these initial manuscripts anymore than we know the authors of these stories, until the church got their hands on them.  Once the church got their hands on them....we have a pretty good idea that they were publishing them.  The book predates the cannon, does it not?

or its author was unknown to the early Church,

the "early church" wasn't in any better a position to know the author than we are now...

then it would simply be a book with no name.

no...it would be the book of matthew missing attribution.

Where are the copies of that nameless book that do NOT have a title page?

 You mean torn copies, incomplete or defective copies?  

It is more probable than not that the gospels were written very early.
It is more probable than not that they were written by the men whose names are commonly assigned to them today.
It is more probable than not that these men were either eyewitnesses or hearers of eyewitnesses.
It is more probable than not that the gospels contain an historically accurate depiction of the life of Jesus.
etc, etc.

You seem to be spinning wildly out of control with your probabilities there.  Sounds more like you're listing the articles of your faith than you've done any math to me.

You are correct. The early Church knew who the authors were, and that played a huge role in determining their canonical status.

We just wasted alot of time for question begging didn't we?  

Now, if it is your position that the gospels were published with the names of the authors included, my next questions would be:

1. Do you think that Matthew actually wrote Matthew, that Mark actually wrote Mark, etc?

No, I don't, but I don't think it matters an iota.  The story remains, and it is what it is regardless of who wrote it.  

2. When did the publishing of these gospels happen? Were they published together or separately over time?

Surely this a question which is one google click away?  You are again asking for the history of the church as though it doesn't exist for no reason apparent to me.

Rhythm, you don't really want to know the history of the canon, do you?

Because as long as you can keep telling yourself that it's just a bunch of anonymously written fairy tales, you can continue to ignore it all, can't you?

But as soon as you start to piece together the real history of the New Testament, and you begin to see that there is some credibility contained therein, then you have other questions to face...questions you'd really rather not let out of the box you've put them in.