The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[athrock]

I'm not speaking of the entire NT but of the individual books or gospels known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And if there were copies of these books that did not say, "The Gospel According to Matthew" or "The Gospel of Mark", then where are they? Shouldn't there be lots of manuscript copies of the gospels that don't have a name associated with them? If so, where are they?

Why would a copy of the book of Matthew be something other than copy of the book of Matthew?  Are you asking where the incomplete manuscript copies are?  

We would agree (I think) that the later copies of the book now known as Matthew would clearly state, "The Gospel According to Matthew". But if the book was published anonymously or its author was unknown to the early Church, then it would simply be a book with no name.

Where are the copies of that nameless book that do NOT have a title page?

Anyone who denies that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The theory is that these books were written much later and that we really don't or can't know who wrote them. Questionable authorship and late dating are the breeding ground for all sorts of fanciful ideas held by skeptics who simply can't bring themselves to admit that the gospels are more reliable than they care to admit.

So no one, a group of made up people in your head to advance a position you feel competent in knocking down?  Do you need me to participate?  

Your choice. Lots of people like to claim that the gospels were written in the second century or that they have no historical value since we (so it is claimed) don't even know who wrote them.

Perhaps, but whether you do so correctly or not is a matter for careful study. The kind of study that suggests that in the case of the gospels, the traditional attribution of authorship is probably correct.

Probable by reference to what...that people tell stories?  

It is more probable than not that the gospels were written very early.
It is more probable than not that they were written by the men whose names are commonly assigned to them today.
It is more probable than not that these men were either eyewitnesses or hearers of eyewitnesses.
It is more probable than not that the gospels contain an historically accurate depiction of the life of Jesus.
etc, etc.

If you believe that the gospels were published anonymously or by authors other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, please present any physical evidence  you may have.

And since I believe that logical arguments in favor of God's existence ARE evidence, I'll entertain logical arguments against the traditional authorship, as well.

Fair is fair, after all.

Except that I -don't- believe that the gospels were published anonymously.  The first time I'd consider them as having been published -at all- they came packaged with attributions.  Since when are we discussing a fucking publisher in the first place?  What happened to their authorship? Again I'm fairly certain that these attributions were a significant portion of the metrics upon which the body of the NT was chosen.

Is this the portion of the act where we flee temporarily from one untenable position to another?

You are correct. The early Church knew who the authors were, and that played a huge role in determining their canonical status.

Now, if it is your position that the gospels were published with the names of the authors included, my next questions would be:

1. Do you think that Matthew actually wrote Matthew, that Mark actually wrote Mark, etc?

2. When did the publishing of these gospels happen? Were they published together or separately over time?