The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[drfuzzy]

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.

I knew of the later addition to Mark, Nestor - - - sure.  I thought that I read about that Bible compiled in the 4th century that the Resurrection was in NONE of the gospels.  Oh dear.  I had better go re-read.  Here's what happens when I go on memory without double-checking my notes.  I'll do some searching tomorrow and check in again.  
I wish that we still had the non-traditional, removed books available.  They would make for interesting reading.
Thanks for making me re-check my info!