The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[Aractus]

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?

Simple, it was removed when copied. What you should be asking is why did scribes copy the any of the "autograph" sections in his other works?

A couple of examples would be helpful.

Mark says Jesus cast out "Legion" in Gerasa. Luke agrees. Matthew says it was in Gadara. Gerasa is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee:



This distance from Gerasa to the Sea is longer than a marathon. Yet Mark claims this:

Mk 5:11-13: Now a great herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; and they begged him, “Send us to the swine, let us enter them.” So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.

It would have taken the pigs hours (about 6-8 hours) to stampede into the Sea. If they could physically sustain that exertion, which of course they couldn't since they're not an athletic animal. Or do you believe pigs can run a marathon?

On the other hand though, if Mark and Luke are right, then it's Matthew that's wrong. See- they can't both be right at the same time.

But more to the point, this is an example of the geographical ignorance of the gospel writers. Not surprising given that Mark and Luke are gentile-Christians writing outside of ancient Palestine in the Syrian region (or some other gentile region).

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.

John Mark is a character that we know very little about, other than the fact that in Acts he appears to be a companion of Paul's (and not of Peter's). Given this, let's look at Paul's work - he concerns himself with what's going on outside of Palestine. After Acts 15, he goes back to Jerusalem just once, at which time he is imprisoned and then executed. John Mark does not appear to have the opportunity to discuss anything with Peter. He didn't accompany Paul on his last visit to Jerusalem.

Do you have a different date in mind?

No I don't have any year in mind because to my knowledge his year of birth is not recorded anywhere. So again, where did you pull your date from?