The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[athrock]

Among the many theories floating around the Interweb are the notions that the authorship of the gospels is unknown, that they were published anonymously, and that the assignment of authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John came much later.

Apart from the obvious question of why the Early Church would ascribe the writing of a gospel to a hated tax collector (Matthew), a Gentile (Luke) and a young man who wasn't even present (Mark) rather than the "pillars" of the Church such as Peter or James, another question comes to mind:

Where are these anonymous manuscripts?

If the gospels were in circulation for many years before they were ascribed to the authors whose names they now bear, shouldn't there be copies of the original documents bearing no name at all? And shouldn't some existing manuscripts show evidence of having been altered to include the authors' names later as was the case with the word "Chrestianos" in Tacitus' Annals?

And if the gospels were written and circulated anonymously throughout the near East, North Africa and the Mediterranean basin among dozens if not hundreds of local churches, wouldn't that require some effort by someone to ensure the standardization of these new names of the gospels on every single flyleaf of every single manuscript in every single church in all of Christendom? If so, 

When and how was this naming accomplished, and is there any written record of this project being ordered, undertaken and completed?

Do skeptics have documentation of such a project found in the writings of an Early Church Father? Wouldn't Pope Clement, St. Ignatius, or St. Irenaeus have known of such an event and mentioned it AS A TRIUMPH OF CHURCH UNITY and as a SIGN OF THE APOSTOLIC ORIGIN of the gospels?

Surely they would. So...why the silence?

[The Grand Nudger]

And if the gospels were written and circulated anonymously throughout the near East, North Africa and the Mediterranean basin among dozens if not hundreds of local churches, wouldn't that require some effort by someone to ensure the standardization of these new names of the gospels on every single flyleaf of every single manuscript in every single church in all of Christendom? If so, 

When and how was this naming accomplished, and is there any written record of this project being ordered, undertaken and completed?

That you're asking this question leads me to doubt your ability to engage in a discussion of the subject.  The collection and appraisal, documentation, and standardization of this narrative is one of the great religious works of christendom past and present.  I'm pretty harsh on christianity, but even I don't see the point in denying them one of their most earnestly worked at endeavors.

As to the rest of your questions, I'm not sure you should be asking them of us, considering your clear position on the matter.  They seem to be the sorts of questions people have been asking christianity to address for ages. Why did they attach those characters to those narratives (and don't forget the big guy..no, not god, paul)? I don't think that you'll be able to answer this question yourself without answering the one I responded to up above.

[athrock]

And if the gospels were written and circulated anonymously throughout the near East, North Africa and the Mediterranean basin among dozens if not hundreds of local churches, wouldn't that require some effort by someone to ensure the standardization of these new names of the gospels on every single flyleaf of every single manuscript in every single church in all of Christendom? If so, 

When and how was this naming accomplished, and is there any written record of this project being ordered, undertaken and completed?

That you're asking this question leads me to doubt your ability to engage in a discussion of the subject.  The collection and appraisal, documentation, and standardization of this narrative is one of the great religious works of christendom past and present.  I'm pretty harsh on christianity, but even I don't see the point in denying them one of their most earnestly worked at endeavors.

That you're asking whether I can engage in a discussion of the subject leads me to doubt whether you want to engage in a discussion of the subject.

This is an example of poisoning the well; you're implying that I'm not open to legitimate discussion so that you can avoid having to be open to the implications yourself.

Another approach would be to simply not respond at all. You'd be doing everyone a favor if you took that route...especially in light of the fact that you dodged the first question above completely. Do you have any information concerning a written record, Rhythm?

If not, may I kindly ask that you just piss off?  

As to the rest of your questions, I'm not sure you should be asking them of us, considering your clear position on the matter.  

My position is clear because the evidence supports it. You cannot say the same.

They seem to be the sorts of questions people have been asking christianity to address for ages.  

Indeed. Two types of people ask: honest seekers and ignorant skeptics.

You're not an honest seeker, are you?

Why did they attach those characters to those narratives (and don't forget the big guy..no, not god, paul)?  I don't think that you'll be able to answer this question yourself without answering the one I responded to up above.

Heh. Right.

The reason the gospels are attributed to the authors we know them by today is because...wait for it...a solid argument may be made for the belief that those are the men who actually wrote them.

Unless you have some, you know, EVIDENCE, to prove otherwise.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the specifics of what you've called a "solid argument" would answer -every single question- you asked.  


You can understand my confusion at seeing the two trains of thought alongside each other as though they were complementary? You are essentially asking for your own religion's history, which they were kind enough to keep records of, as though it didn't exist...when you clearly think that it does. What gives?

[Angrboda]

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...to-the-gos

[brewer]

[edit] especially in light of the fact that you dodged the first question above completely. [edit]

Bold mine.
Quick step in and then leave. You're quite the pot calling the kettle black. You've dodged more questions of mine than anyone else.
As far as this thread, don't give a shit. Who cares who wrote bad distasteful fantasy. Stepping out now.

[drfuzzy]

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...to-the-gos

Yes, brilliant Jor.  Good simple analysis. 
It's common knowledge that the letters of Paul predate the Gospels.  The earliest Gospel, Mark, has been dated to approximately 70 years after Jesus' death.  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?

[Aractus]

If the gospels were in circulation for many years before they were ascribed to the authors whose names they now bear, shouldn't there be copies of the original documents bearing no name at all?

Okay that's a reasonable question. You can't expect us laypeople to answer it for you, you need to ask a new testament scholar. As you haven't done this, I'll have a guess for you. The writings were not in immediate circulation, they began circulation after a few decades of being written, sometime in the second century. We know from the records of early church fathers that the belief of who the gospel writers were was in place by early-mid second century, thus we can reasonably assume that the titles were added to the documents before this time. It's true that every early manuscript of the gospels that includes the first page has the title on it, but it's also true that it's not a part of the manuscript itself. I.e. the author didn't identify himself in the same way that Paul, James, and Jude do.

If the gospels were in circulation for many years before they were ascribed to the authors whose names they now bear, shouldn't there be copies of the original documents bearing no name at all? And shouldn't some existing manuscripts show evidence of having been altered to include the authors' names later as was the case with the word "Chrestianos" in Tacitus' Annals?

No, not necessarily. As I mentioned, we have no page-1's from any gospels written before their known author-attribution in the early-mid second century.

And as we have no page-1's earlier than late second century, we wouldn't expect any of them to be altered to include the "author's" name.

And if the gospels were written and circulated anonymously throughout the near East, North Africa and the Mediterranean basin among dozens if not hundreds of local churches, wouldn't that require some effort by someone to ensure the standardization of these new names of the gospels on every single flyleaf of every single manuscript in every single church in all of Christendom? If so,

No, not at all. That's a complete misconception - there are a number of textual traditions that scholars have identified in early manuscripts (I'm thinking more narrow than "Byzantine" type etc), however they all converge at one point. What we don't know - and what you certainly don't know - is precisely what happened between AD50 and AD130. What I think happened is that the Jerusalem church was completely destroyed by 70AD. No significant early church leader is known, or even thought to have lived beyond this time. Even in official church records from the second century they are all believed dead before then. This includes: Jesus, Judas, James, Joseph, Peter, Luke, Paul, Barnabas, John, and every single person of importance in the New Testament. The church rebuilt itself after this, but not from Jerusalem. From the Syrian and other "gentile" regions.

When and how was this naming accomplished, and is there any written record of this project being ordered, undertaken and completed?

No one knows exactly. That doesn't make one theory more valid than another, but the evidence is not very strong for the supposed authors of "Matthew", "Mark", and "John". Let me explain why, but first let's take care of Luke. It is quite likely the author of Luke-Acts is Luke the physician, an associate of Paul's. This comes from the fact that he leaves himself out of events in Acts that he would have been present in. However, as it has been pointed out to me, there is another possibility that is just as likely and that is that Luke-Acts was written by a close associate of Luke. I'm comfortable enough to say it was Luke and it makes not much difference if it was Luke himself or one of his close associates (the only difference it makes is how well the author of Luke-Acts knew Paul - if Luke he knew Paul personally and knew him well, and if an associate of Luke then he may not have known Paul himself).

The implausibility of Matthean and Markan authorship should not need to be explained to you. Mark is supposedly written by an associate of Peter's. Even if Peter was still alive when Mark was written, it's clear that the author is not an eyewitness of Jesus or someone who is closely associated with such a person. In fact Mark has literacy dependence on pre-existing material, just as Luke and Matthew have literacy dependence on Mark as well as at least one other source. Matthean authorship has the same issue - if Matthew was a prominent disciple of Jesus then he wouldn't need literacy dependence on Mark (who wasn't) and whatever other document or documents he was using. Luke - well no one's claiming he sat down and had lunch with any disciples, and in the introduction of his gospel he states that he's used pre-existing material to complete his work.

The Gospel of John - much like the books of the Pentateuch such as Genesis and Exodus - has at least three different authors.

[Minimalist]

If the gospels were in circulation for many years before they were ascribed to the authors whose names they now bear,

That's a big "IF" you have there at the beginning of your question.  Seeing as how Justyn Martyr writing c 160 never heard of any of them I would say that the condition you laid out is doubtful, at best.

Early xtian writers tell us that it was Marcion of Sinope who produced the first xtian canon.  "The Gospel of the Lord" and 10 epistles of the so-called "paul."  The gospel of the lord turns out to be what we now call "luke" after a couple of chapters were added to it.

The observation that Marcion was the first to write things down in some sort of authoritative book opens up a realm of possibilities, not the least of which is that jesusism or whatever you want to call it at that time, was a mystery cult like all the other popular mystery cults in which knowledge was conveyed orally from masters to initiates.  Marcion was the innovator and, to give them credit, the proto-orthodox writers of the late 2d century saw the utility in writing this shit down.  But if they did so, they were going to make sure that it said what they wanted it to say.

[Mudhammam]

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.