The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[athrock]

James isn't a narrative. Christ Rhythm at least educate yourself.

[athrock]

Incorrect.

The earliest gospel, Mark, dates to AD 70 (conservatively); you can date it to AD 50 if you work through a bit of reasoning. 

70 years after AD 33 would place Mark around AD 103; this is much too late.

Correct.  I mis- . . . typed.  I was WAY off my game in this post, too - only the Gospel of Mark does not include the Resurrection.  But even at AD 50, the letters of Paul predate it.  Since Paul was writing during James and Peter's lifetimes.  Push past AD 70 and you have lost that window of time.   I also claimed that the Codex Sinaiticus was the oldest complete text, but other sources have the Codex Vaticanus as the earliest - - - not by much, and certainly close in the same century, (400's) but older.

I contend that while Mark does not mention the resurrection events in the expanded versions that are seen in other gospels, Mark does proclaim it. When the women arrive at the tomb on Sunday morning, Mark places the following words into the mouth of an angel: "He is risen."

That's what the resurrection is all about. Jesus is risen from the dead.

[drfuzzy]

Correct.  I mis- . . . typed.  I was WAY off my game in this post, too - only the Gospel of Mark does not include the Resurrection.  But even at AD 50, the letters of Paul predate it.  Since Paul was writing during James and Peter's lifetimes.  Push past AD 70 and you have lost that window of time.   I also claimed that the Codex Sinaiticus was the oldest complete text, but other sources have the Codex Vaticanus as the earliest - - - not by much, and certainly close in the same century, (400's) but older.

I contend that while Mark does not mention the resurrection events in the expanded versions that are seen in other gospels, Mark does proclaim it. When the women arrive at the tomb on Sunday morning, Mark places the following words into the mouth of an angel: "He is risen."

That's what the resurrection is all about. Jesus is risen from the dead.

Yes, that's the myth.  A lot of people still believe it, as you do.  I do not.  I examine the history and contradictions of the book because when I was little I was told that it was infallible.  I like collecting information.  I don't particularly care what anyone thinks of the book -- unless they are rude enough to insist that I should believe the stories in it.

[athrock]

What I'm asking is this: If the gospels were circulated anonymously for many years before being attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were are the copies of the manuscripts which do not have their names associated with them?

I'm not sure what it is you're asking?  By "the gospels" I have to assume you mean the NT proper.  Who thinks that the NT proper was circulated anonymously before attribution to the authors?  I'm certain that attribution was a very important component of determining the provenance of various stories circulating along the periphery of the christ narrative.  In determining what would be gospel and what would be apocrypha.  

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?

And how did the Church manage to label each and every single copy of these anonymous gospels without any record of this project being mentioned in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

Again I have to ask you who thinks that they did?  

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, dear atheist, if you want to claim that we don't know who wrote the gospels, where is YOUR evidence of anonymity?

Attribution does not provide any reasonable certainty of the authors identity.  It provides a working concept to discuss the work apart from the identity of it's author.  We attribute tales to Aesop.  

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.

There is no need to provide evidence that I cannot say with certainty who the authors of the gospels where....this is precisely the problem..if I had some evidence I could tell you.  I'll I have are the things a story says about itself.........

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.

[athrock]

I recommend you read a good book on the history of the canon of scripture.

And I hand that recommendation right back at your not so humble self. Maybe starting out with what the classical age understood as history and then moving on to the different concils compiling and rejecting scripts until they found something like a canon. Which, by the way, was forbidden to read in it's entirety for any layman in the Middle Ages.

Reading's always good. Especially when it comes to history. Prevents stupid questions.

The scriptures were forbidden to the laity in the Middle Ages?

Boy, this is a classic. Let's play.

What is your basis for this claim?

[athrock]

I contend that while Mark does not mention the resurrection events in the expanded versions that are seen in other gospels, Mark does proclaim it. When the women arrive at the tomb on Sunday morning, Mark places the following words into the mouth of an angel: "He is risen."

That's what the resurrection is all about. Jesus is risen from the dead.

Yes, that's the myth.  A lot of people still believe it, as you do.  I do not.  I examine the history and contradictions of the book because when I was little I was told that it was infallible.  I like collecting information.  I don't particularly care what anyone thinks of the book -- unless they are rude enough to insist that I should believe the stories in it.

The Bible is not infallible because it cannot be prevented from teaching error. It simply says what it says.

People can be prevented from teaching error. Therefore, people can be infallible. Books are inerrant.

But that's probably splitting hairs.

Now, the Bible contains books that were written as history, allegory, poetry, etc. All sorts of literary styles. 

What caused you to stop thinking the Bible is either inerrant or "infallible"?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?  

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?  

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?  

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 of the NT were published -as- anonymous stories, which is different than being published anonymously.  The first time I'd consider them as having been published -at all- they came packaged with attributions and we -still- don't know exactly who published them.  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?

[abaris]

The scriptures were forbidden to the laity in the Middle Ages?

Read what I wrote. In it's entirety. Not all of scripture. Innozenz III., 1199.

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

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

On that count it was...we -don't- know who published these initial manuscripts anymore than we know the authors of these stories, until the church got their hands on them.  Once the church got their hands on them....we have a pretty good idea that they were publishing them.  The book predates the cannon, does it not?

or its author was unknown to the early Church,

the "early church" wasn't in any better a position to know the author than we are now...

then it would simply be a book with no name.

no...it would be the book of matthew missing attribution.

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

 You mean torn copies, incomplete or defective copies?  

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.

You seem to be spinning wildly out of control with your probabilities there. Sounds more like you're listing the articles of your faith than you've done any math to me.

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

We just wasted alot of time for question begging didn't we?

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?

No, I don't, but I don't think it matters an iota. The story remains, and it is what it is regardless of who wrote it.

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

Surely this a question which is one google click away? You are again asking for the history of the church as though it doesn't exist for no reason apparent to me. We have no disagreement between us about who published these stories or when, or how. Save for one. You think the "first edition" came from the pen of matthew, as it were. Scribes are allowed. I simply can;t see why I should believe that to be the case? Because the early church fathers thought so? You might have noticed that the early church fathers and I have a wide range of disagreements of opinion.