The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[athrock]

Additionally, I'm no scholar, but it is my understanding that when scribes completed a document (Paul composed his letters orally and only occasionally attached a greeting in his own handwriting), a second copy was made immediately so that the contents were not lost.

No, he says he does this in EVERY letter he sends. Which is how we know that they weren't intended to be copied:

"I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write." - 2 Thessalonians 3:17

It is to mark them as authentic - like someone signing their name. Thus we know that Paul didn't intend for others to copy his letters. Nor would he have made copies for circulation when he could write letters directed to other churches instead - which is what he clearly did. And besides, we have examples of letters being sent out from the same location to different churches - he sent both Corinthians and Galatians from Syria at or around the same time.

Then how are we to understand this line from Romans?

22 I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord.

Are you arguing that Paul wrote EVERY letter by hand personally and that if the letter does not contain Paul's "distinguishing mark" - a concluding passage in his own hand - then the letters are not authentic?

Then what do you make of the writings of Papias? Did he simply make all this up? I think this unlikely since the ECF's were quite keen on passing on what they had been taught VERY faithfully.

I also consider it unlikely that the early Christians went to mass on Sunday morning and someone stood up and said, "A reading from the Holy Gospel according to...um...someone."  

The early Church KNEW who the authors were. ...

No, he probably didn't make it up but he WAS mistaken. This is one problem with critical scholars that argue for late authorship of the gospels - if the synoptic gospels were written between 80-90AD then Papias was spectacularly incompetent - especially if he's writing as early as you'd like us to believe - but even if he's writing early second century he's got it spectacularly wrong.

Even on his claim though (that Mark is 100% accurate) we know Mark got things wrong.

A couple of examples would be helpful.

The fact that there were known "forgeries" afoot doesn't negate the fact that some of the NT writings are also forged - or rather written in the name of someone who didn't actually write the text. Let's suppose for a moment that you're correct that they "knew" that the authors of Mark and Luke were Mark and Luke. Fine. That's not a problem. What is a problem is when we're told some 30-50 years after Mark has been written that "Mark got his knowledge from Peter" and "he didn't get anything wrong in his gospel". That's where it becomes a problem - when the claim is made the author personally knew one of the disciples. That claim is not made for Luke.

I'm not following you here...my apologies. My understanding is that John Mark was a disciple of Peter and that he collected the sayings of Peter which became the basis for Mark's Gospel. If Mark published early (AD 50), then Peter was still alive at the time. If he published late (AD 70), then Peter had been martyred in Rome five years earlier. Either way, I guess I need some examples of what Mark got wrong in order to understand why Papias was incorrect when he attributed Mark to Mark.

As for Luke, where do you get the idea that he did not know any of the apostles? He is clear that He had investigated the matter of Jesus' life and death thoroughly since He admits as much in his prologue. He knew Paul for one, probably Mary and John (for two), and during the course of his travels, he could have easily met any number of disciples - either in Jerusalem or in Rome or wherever. I don't want to over-play the hand, so I'll stick with Paul, Peter, Mary and John.

And furthermore when we come to Matthew it's obvious to anyone that it's not written by one of the original 12. The fact that he has to plagiarise from Mark proves this. The author of Matthew is dependant upon pre-existing written and/or oral material about the ministry of Jesus. And Matthew was composed in Greek and not Hebrew. So the fact that Papias gets these things wrong proves that he's not a reliable source to ascertain who the authors are and what their relationship was to the disciples and other members of the early church.

You're only ASSUMING that Matthew had to plagiarize Mark when it is possible that he simply did so to save time. There is nothing condemnatory about that. However, both Papias and Irenaeus claimed that Matthew had written in Greek, as did Origen and Eusebius. Now, maybe they were all simply copying the same mistake from one another, but this is speculation.

Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that Matthew should have been 100% original in his material if he was a legitimate eye-witness, but this does not follow. He could have been an eyewitness and he could have used previously extant material massaged to meet the needs of the audience for whom he was writing.

[quote='athrock' pid='1191804' dateline='1454348765']
You've omitted John (he was in Ephesus), Clement (he was in Rome), and a boatload of other folks named in the New Testament who were either scattered by the persecution that broke out after the day of Pentecost or who were not actually from Jerusalem to begin with (such as Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos). Since Clement is named in one of Paul's letters AND considered the fourth bishop of Rome, I don't think the idea of "rebuilding" is correct. It is more correct that the center of the Church shifted from Jerusalem to the heart of the Empire.

More to the point, Papias was born in AD 70, and he was a disciple of John. Consequently, when he tells us who the authors of the gospels were based on what he heard from John (and others presumably), then I think we CAN know what what happening between AD 50 and AD 130). He and others (such as Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr) tell us.

How do you know when Papias was born?

Do you have a different date in mind?

This may be the first time in my life that I'm going to invoke "Occam's Razor" since I think folks often do so to avoid considering all alternatives thoroughly. However, does it REALLY make sense to add a second anonymous person into the mix? Why stop there? Why not assert that it was actually a friend of someone who knew Luke? Or a friend of a friend of a friend of Luke? This would enable the skeptic to cast doubt on Luke-Acts completely.

See my point? Of all the gospels, Lucan authorship is probably the least contested.

Either is an equally plausible possibility when we consider that Luke-Acts are anonymous. If the author identified himself as Luke then his authorship probably be contested. But he doesn't.

Paul mentions Luke as his travelling companion. Luke uses "we" frequently in the narrative of Acts. But there is a biography of Luke available here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

Papias states that according to John the Elder, Mark was an associate of Peter and wrote down Peter's sayings - though not necessarily in the correct order. Luke, therefore, made an effort to write an "orderly" account.

Yes but he wrote that down in the early second century, at least 30 years after the gospels were written (and I'd argue more like 50 years). And he was wrong 0 just like many people frequently are.

Ah, well...since you say so. C'mon...you have some support for this?

Which is not quite the same as saying that the Apostle John (the unnamed disciple in several passages) was not involved in the authorship of the gospel which bears his name.

He wasn't involved, but it is clear that it is most likely written by disciples of John. The theology is very different to the rest of the New Testament which suggests it was written independently of the Pauline branch of Christianity.

Or that by the year 95, after 60 years of reflection, John, being familiar with the synoptics, wanted to emphasize some different themes.