The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[abaris]

Where are these anonymous manuscripts?

This may be the most stupid question I've heard in a long time concerning ancient literature. Well, of course, every original piece of literature ever written is well preserved and cared for. What are 2000 years after all to some piece of papyrus penned down somewhere in the Middle East or Greece?

And, it's not some saying the have been attributed to these men. It's quite a few scholars holding that opinion, since Mark sounds better than Shmuel, the camel herder, telliing tall tales on some trade route. The question, why the ancient church(es) took these persons to be role models, is equally naive. Their role makes them ideal role models for conversion stories to present to followers.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Where are these anonymous manuscripts?

This may be the most stupid question I've heard in a long time concerning ancient literature. Well, of course, every original piece of literature ever written is well preserved and cared for. What are 2000 years after all to some piece of papyrus penned down somewhere in the Middle East or Greece?

And, it's not some saying the have been attributed to these men. It's quite a few scholars holding that opinion, since Mark sounds better than Shmuel, the camel herder, telliing tall tales on some trade route. The question, why the ancient church(es) took these persons to be role models, is equally naive. Their role makes them ideal role models for conversion stories to present to followers.

Have you noticed that all of the main characters have easily pronounceable "English" names while the minor characters have ancient Jewish and Greek names?

[Aractus]

This may be the most stupid question I've heard in a long time concerning ancient literature. Well, of course, every original piece of literature ever written is well preserved and cared for. What are 2000 years after all to some piece of papyrus penned down somewhere in the Middle East or Greece?

And, it's not some saying the have been attributed to these men. It's quite a few scholars holding that opinion, since Mark sounds better than Shmuel, the camel herder, telliing tall tales on some trade route. The question, why the ancient church(es) took these persons to be role models, is equally naive. Their role makes them ideal role models for conversion stories to present to followers.

Actually, none of the NT books would have been canonised if their authorship/supposed-authorship wasn't accepted by early church leaders, with the possible exception of Hebrews. This is exactly why other gnostic gospels were rejected - because they were known/believed to be pseudonymous/forgeries. So the fact that three out of the four gospels have wrong author-attribution is extremely important to the question of their legitimacy as a part of Christian literature.

Following the fall of the central church authority in Jerusalem by 70AD however, the early Christians found themselves without the means to reliably authenticate gospels and letters that were circulating. We know with at least three out of the four gospels that they failed at this. Luke-Acts they probably got right (or close enough anyway). All Paul's main letters they got right as well. James and Jude appear to be authentic also (with scholars noting that the James that wrote James may or may not be James the Just), but they got 1-2 Peter wrong. Of all the books of the NT besides revelation, 1-2 Peter have the worst credentials for even being written in the first century, let alone having correct authorship.

Hebrews is extremely well written, scholars say it has the best use of Greek in the NT, and was written by someone with detailed knowledge of Pauline theology. This has led people (including scholars) to speculate that it might have been Luke who wrote it - or some other close associate of Paul - or even Paul himself by dictation to a skilled scribe. All are possible, especially the latter because Paul is known to have travelled quite a bit, thus why he used different scribes for different books and not just one that he took with him (in fact, we could further speculate the scribes might have been provided by the churches he was visiting to send his letters). In Acts 15 James & the church authorities sends scribes (Judas Barsab′bas & Silas) with Paul and Barnabas to write and deliver the message they agreed upon at the council, so it's actually quite a likely explanation. What is clear though is that (like the pastorals) Hebrews is closely associated with Paul, if not actually Paul himself.

Anyway it's not a stupid question, it's a question that's been asked now for 1900 years. What Christians however don't want to accept is that modern scholars (even going back in "recent" centuries) have found very differently to what the early church fathers thought in the second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries. But even in those early centuries there are examples of doubters as well.

[Mudhammam]

Okay... I'm wrong yet you repeat exactly what I claimed from the start? I said that none of the Gospels, insofar as we might be able to evaluate authorship, appear prior to the second century. Twice you've attempted to correct me... To then go on and say just that (with the possible exception of Clement).

You said "at least the second century" we have direct quotes from them at the very start of the second century. They therefore show up then at the latest.

So besides Clement, do you have anything from the first century that is relevant here? If not, then it is correct to say, as I did, that nothing shows up (other than possibly Clement) until at least the second century.

[robvalue]

As far as Matthew goes, the most prominent example is him "recording" the event where the dead raise up and go wandering around. So either this actually happened but no one else noticed it or thought it worth commenting on, not even the other synoptics; or he made it up.

Which is most likely?

Would you treat any source where you know people are making shit up as reliable?

[Aractus]

As far as Matthew goes, the most prominent example is him "recording" the event where the dead raise up and go wandering around. So either this actually happened but no one else noticed it or thought it worth commenting on, not even the other synoptics; or he made it up.

Which is most likely?

Would you treat any source where you know people are making shit up as reliable?

Matthew is based on at least two written pre-existing sources (proto-mark and "q" or some other sayings document), as well as oral embellishment and folklore. The fact that he includes some mythical features before and after the ministry itself (where Mark does not) does in no way negate the fact that Jesus delivered the sermon on the mount as is clearly proved by the existence of the Epistle of James which pre-dates Matthew by at least a decade.

Do we treat the entire gospel as "reliable"? Of course not, but that's not the point. Within there is some historicity and some things in particular we can say about the teachings and ministry of Jesus.

[Mudhammam]

Do we treat the entire gospel as "reliable"? Of course not, but that's not the point. Within there is some historicity and some things in particular we can say about the teachings and ministry of Jesus.

Exactly. This notion that legendary features discount the veracity of an entire text is absurd. The Gospels lie somewhere between Homer and Plutarch; with all of the folklore, that you'd expect to find in the likes of, say, that great blind poet, are mixed the sorts of mundane details that a historian finds useful.

[Aractus]

Well even serious historians get their facts spectacularly wrong on occasion, as is the case with Herodotus saying the pyramids were "built by slave labour". But we also know (or at least that's the academic thinking) that he went and visited Egypt and that's what he was told - he didn't make it up for shits and giggles.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is pathetic.  We're giving this shit a pass one one hand by saying "well, people probably gave incorrect information or embellished when they cribbed".  Yes...yes they probably did? Establishing the truth of one gospel...historically, by reference to another gospel? Christ. That's checking one chapter of Harry Potter against another.......and -you- just told us they were "embellished".

...and on the other hand /w... "we pick out the non-magical bits in a magic story, that's history"....... Legendary narratives -do- render the narrative suspect historically. If you think that's absurd I can't help you. You can still propose that there was some core personage (this is the difference between legendary and mythical in a nutshell) but it's senseless to point at a narrative you -know- to be filled with fiction for some fact. It may be there, but how would you know which? How could you know that the color of the hair of the main character wasn't just as fictional as their flying through the air? How could you know that the main flying character himself weren't fictional, with some other personage in the narrative being the historical personage? Perhaps "jesus" is just a mouth to put your philosophy into.

I'm glad that we don't have to rely on either of you two for our history.

[Aractus]

With respect Rhythm, this is done with all manner of ancient texts, not just religious texts. You can find all through the middle ages examples of people experiencing or witnessing "supernatural events", and in those cases some of them are first-hand. But that doesn't make the writings useless for the task of ascertaining something about the past.