The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[athrock]

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.

And now, the REST of the story (key passages in bold):

The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be inferred from the Church's practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the Church to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:

(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the SacredBooks according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, Against Heresies III.4).

(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensianheresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III", Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death of Innocent III, the Synod ofToulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari: "prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere" (Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods(Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).

(3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read theScriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, that is a story, isn't it?  Thanks for bringing the magic.

[athrock]

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.

Rhythm, you don't really want to know the history of the canon, do you?

Because as long as you can keep telling yourself that it's just a bunch of anonymously written fairy tales, you can continue to ignore it all, can't you?

But as soon as you start to piece together the real history of the New Testament, and you begin to see that there is some credibility contained therein, then you have other questions to face...questions you'd really rather not let out of the box you've put them in.

[The Grand Nudger]

We're not having any disagreement as to the history of the text, so I'm not sure what relevance the question has?  

Are you checking out entirely, on me, with the rest of that bullshit? I really don't care whether or not fairies exist, as difficult as that may be for you to believe. I just don't...and I'm struggling to see how this is any more relevant to my comments than the above was.

[athrock]

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,

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

This is wishful thinking on your part.

Roughly akin to saying that a New York Mets fan wouldn't be able to know when his team had won its championships...regardless of when that fan was born...without ever reading a book. A grandfather would tell his grandson about the Miracle Mets of '69. A father would tell his son about how the Mets were one out away from losing before coming back to win in '86. History that is passed on orally is history nonetheless.

Peter and Paul taught Clement and Ignatius. John discipled Polycarp and Papias. Polycarp discipled Irenaeus who mentored Hippolytus.

The Early Church knew EXACTLY who wrote the gospels because it knew the men who wrote them and it knew the men who knew the men who wrote them. And it knew the men who knew the men who knew the men...generation after generation after generation.

[athrock]

Yes, that is a story, isn't it?  Thanks for bringing the magic.

Are you ignorant, in denial or both?

[athrock]

We're not having any disagreement as to the history of the text, so I'm not sure what relevance the question has?  

Are you checking out entirely, on me, with the rest of that bullshit?  I really don't care whether or not fairies exist, as difficult as that may be for you to believe.  I just don't...and I'm struggling to see how this is any more relevant to my comments than the above was.

After awhile, the weight of evidence begins to suggest that the gospels are anything but fairy stories.

Which is why you do NOT want to evaluate that evidence honestly.

You'd rather live in a make-believe world of your own.

[The Grand Nudger]

This is wishful thinking on your part.

Roughly akin to saying that a New York Mets fan wouldn't be able to know when his team had won its championships...regardless of when that fan was born...without ever reading a book. A grandfather would tell his grandson about the Miracle Mets of '69. A father would tell his son about how the Mets were one out away from losing before coming back to win in '86. History that is passed on orally is history nonetheless.

......so you're invoking a shadowy oral history not in evidence -as- evidence of the historicity of a shadowy story that -is- in evidence?  I think that you might be headed down a terrible path, lol.    

Peter and Paul taught Clement and Ignatius. John discipled Polycarp and Papias. Polycarp discipled Irenaeus who mentored Hippolytus.

The Early Church knew EXACTLY who wrote the gospels because it knew the men who wrote them and it knew the men who knew the men who wrote them. And it knew the men who knew the men who knew the men...generation after generation after generation.

Wipe your mouth.  Take a breath.  Again I'll simply suggest that they didn't know, and couldn't have known.  One hopes that they chose narratives which conformed to their expectations and the needs of the church.  Otherwise, what would the point have been?

[abaris]

In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned

Yes, yes. I'm sure, there's a lot of wiggling going on on your side. I know that passage, by the way. You're focussing on praiseworthy instead of dangerous, I'm sure. Dangerous sometimes had lethal consequences for the so called unlearned, you know.

I'm sure, you can take it from there and look these cases up by yourself.

[brewer]

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.

If you believe I have dodged even a single important question, then by all means, point it out. I'll circle back to cover what I may have missed or ignored previously.

A PM containing links to your posts will suffice. I will correct any omission in the appropriate threads as is usual.

Thanks.

Not going to take the time to look them up. Believe it was in your first or second thread. First dodge was when I asked are you a theist, second and third dodges were are you a christian. This was back when you were stating that you were "open minded".