Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 11, 2025, 1:58 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts
#8
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts
(January 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm)athrock Wrote: 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.

(January 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm)athrock Wrote: 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.

(January 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm)athrock Wrote: 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.

(January 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm)athrock Wrote: 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.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK

The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK


"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Reply



Messages In This Thread
The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - January 30, 2016 at 5:33 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - January 30, 2016 at 5:41 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - January 30, 2016 at 6:05 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by brewer - January 30, 2016 at 8:21 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 12:51 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by brewer - February 1, 2016 at 6:36 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 4:12 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by brewer - February 4, 2016 at 4:17 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Nihilist Virus - February 6, 2016 at 1:36 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Cato - February 6, 2016 at 2:58 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - January 30, 2016 at 6:09 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 12:30 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Angrboda - January 30, 2016 at 8:10 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - January 30, 2016 at 8:23 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - January 30, 2016 at 9:54 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 1:01 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - January 31, 2016 at 4:27 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 6:10 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - January 31, 2016 at 3:25 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 8:40 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - January 31, 2016 at 10:34 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:31 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - January 31, 2016 at 1:01 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 3:51 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - January 31, 2016 at 2:13 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:02 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 12:54 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - February 1, 2016 at 1:10 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 3:16 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - February 1, 2016 at 3:24 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 3:35 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - February 1, 2016 at 8:51 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by drfuzzy - February 4, 2016 at 5:08 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 2, 2016 at 2:48 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 6:02 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 5, 2016 at 2:29 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 12:48 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by RoadRunner79 - February 1, 2016 at 1:02 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 30, 2016 at 9:05 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 11:31 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 5:58 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 4, 2016 at 8:09 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - January 30, 2016 at 9:51 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - January 30, 2016 at 10:08 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Wyrd of Gawd - January 30, 2016 at 10:57 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:04 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by abaris - February 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 3:30 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by abaris - February 1, 2016 at 3:39 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 4:17 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Wyrd of Gawd - February 2, 2016 at 12:47 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Wyrd of Gawd - February 2, 2016 at 12:22 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - January 31, 2016 at 1:48 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 4:08 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - January 31, 2016 at 5:34 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by robvalue - January 31, 2016 at 5:45 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:24 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by robvalue - January 31, 2016 at 6:23 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 7:38 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by downbeatplumb - January 31, 2016 at 6:44 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by robvalue - January 31, 2016 at 7:40 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 2:42 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - January 31, 2016 at 9:21 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Cecelia - January 31, 2016 at 6:54 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by abaris - January 31, 2016 at 8:51 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Wyrd of Gawd - January 31, 2016 at 8:57 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - January 31, 2016 at 9:33 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by robvalue - February 1, 2016 at 4:56 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 5:32 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - February 1, 2016 at 6:27 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 9:07 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 9:14 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 9:23 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 9:33 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 10:13 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - February 1, 2016 at 10:04 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:06 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - February 1, 2016 at 10:08 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:10 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Mudhammam - February 1, 2016 at 10:14 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:15 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 10:37 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:16 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:39 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 10:45 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Wyrd of Gawd - February 1, 2016 at 9:17 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:47 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 10:50 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 3:04 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 10:52 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 10:59 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 11:02 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 11:05 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 11:11 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 11:15 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 11:19 am
The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by LadyForCamus - February 1, 2016 at 11:39 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 1, 2016 at 11:56 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 12:50 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 2, 2016 at 6:24 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 3:28 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 3:38 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 3:50 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 4:11 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 4:23 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 4:37 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 4:23 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 4:37 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 4:28 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 4:40 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Grandizer - February 1, 2016 at 9:33 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 4:44 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by abaris - February 1, 2016 at 5:13 pm
The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by LadyForCamus - February 1, 2016 at 9:15 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 1, 2016 at 9:53 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by The Grand Nudger - February 2, 2016 at 4:50 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 4, 2016 at 7:13 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - February 4, 2016 at 4:51 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - February 7, 2016 at 11:30 pm
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Aractus - February 8, 2016 at 4:27 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Jenny A - February 8, 2016 at 5:18 am
RE: The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts - by Minimalist - February 9, 2016 at 1:46 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gospel of John controversy Jillybean 13 1673 June 12, 2024 at 10:54 pm
Last Post: Prycejosh1987
  Mark's Gospel was damaged and reassembled incorrectly SeniorCitizen 1 496 November 19, 2023 at 5:48 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark. Jehanne 133 19254 May 7, 2019 at 9:50 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  How can you prove that the gospel of Mark is not the "word of god"? Lincoln05 100 15226 October 16, 2018 at 5:38 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
  The Gospel of Peter versus the Gospel of Matthew. Jehanne 47 7809 July 14, 2018 at 12:22 am
Last Post: Godscreated
  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles = Satanic Gospel Metis 14 4839 July 17, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  Why do gospel contradictions matter? taylor93112 87 22343 April 28, 2015 at 7:27 pm
Last Post: Desert Diva
  The infancy gospel of thomas dyresand 18 7894 December 29, 2014 at 10:35 am
Last Post: dyresand
  "Gospel Quest" (or The Jesus Timeline) DeistPaladin 93 20489 August 11, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Gospel Contradictions: Sermon on the ? findingdoubt 25 11037 September 5, 2013 at 12:30 am
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)