For and Against the Anonymity of the Gospels — without table format

45 thoughts on “For and Against the Anonymity of the Gospels — without table format”

1. In English, a phrase like “The Gospel of Mark,” has had at least two possible meanings. And one of them is just that we are being presented with a gospel not written by Mark, but one merely say, OWNED by Mark.

   Our English preposition “of” has many meanings. And is very ambiguous.

   Anyone care to talk about what the original Greek looks like?

   Example: “The manuscripts of the Library of Congress are available online.”

   Reply

   1. it is “kata” — “according to”: http://biblehub.com/greek/2596.htm

      euangelion kata Matthaion

      Reply

      1. Could even that mean not 1) “written by,” but 2) as referred to by? As I recall, there have been scholarly articles that read these titles as not referring to authors, but various schools, headed by figures like Mark. Which in turn were perhaps in possession of still other materials.

         So for example, we might refer to “pop culture, according to Adorno, and the Frankfurt school.” Adorno and the Frankfurt School, would be commentators on, but not the author of, pop culture.

         As I recall, many attempts were made to suggest this: that the names referred to at most the heads of various regional traditions or schools. And not original authors.

         By the way, Pitre publishes often with known, self-confessed Catholic apologists, like Robert Baron and others. However, he says that he is now considering in effect, more liberal positions. On the Le Donne blog, he seems mostly open to many positions, for now. As a theologian from New Orleans or sin city, he has to be somewhat receptive to liberal thinking. As with most of the Le Donne crowd, I see him as a conservative who however, will listen, albeit impatiently, to other positions or schools.

         Reply

         1. I don’t understand that group of scholars. How can Crossley sit intellectually alongside the likes of Pitre? Crossley has written about religious bias in the strongest terms and it would appear that by being part of that group on the HJ blog he is sleeping with his enemies. I guess he may be seen as a classic case study of the unbeliever who is obliged to think within certain correct parameters simply to attain the professional acceptance needed to survive. He writes of the Chomsky model but from where I stand he fails to see how he himself is part of it. He would deny this, I presume, but if so then he would be still falling in with the Chomsky model of complying with certain minimum of correct thoughts simply in order to be where he is today.

            Reply

            1. Chomsky sounds about right.

               I think that whole group is conflicted, torn. They’re coming 1) from a believing background. But they 2) are trained in a somewhat more critical academic approach. Which they are pursuing, but somewhat uncomfortably.

               They are mostly torn … and don’t quite have the consistently critical mindset of say, atheists.

               Like nearly all employed scholars today, they will question every individual element of Christianity … but cannot finally give it all up, publicly. In part because of massive social disapproval.

               Crossley sees it. But doesn’t quite have the courage of his convictions, consistently.

               Partly, they’re young?

               Le Donne sees it, too.

               Generally they’re resistant. But they reluctantly accept a polite, intelligent argument.

               I’m hoping they can be converted one day to a more critical perspective.

               Reply

         2. Yes, there are a range of possible options for what lies behind “according to/kata”. But one constant remains: that all four gospels bear the same form of title. Ehrman’s explanation (though he is hardly the originator of the hypothesis) makes the most sense to me.

            Reply

            1. Ehrman sounds OK here. But I’m currently following scholarship that posits different regional traditions. possibly the names, name prominent persons in regional traditions. The name Mark is extremely Roman. Luke is Greek. Don’t know about Mat and John. John was thought to be Cypriot?

               “Matthew” as it turns out, was originally Hebrew.

               So it looks also like we’ve got four regions – and probably four different churches. The 1)Roman Church; the 2)Greek Orthodox. The 3)Jerusalem or Judean Christians’ church.

               John I’m still trying to figure out. He’s an odd one. Maybe he stands for 4)hermits. And their odd ascetic, farflung redoubts, caves. And their prophetic apocalyptic.

               People who live in the wilderness, often do that because they hate the often hypocritical and apparently corrupt social “world.” And they are always predicting its apocalyptic end, due to internal corruption.

               John was said to be a sort of hermit in, as it happened, the Island of Cyprus.

               Reply

               1. ‘“Matthew” as it turns out, was originally Hebrew.’
                  Well, there was a rumor among our proto-orthodox authors that Matthew had written the earliest gospel in “Hebrew” (presumably Aramaic), which was used by Nasoreans/Essenes, and which the canonical GMatthew was spuriously identified with.

                  I think that when, toward the end of the second century, Irenaus decided that his “Universal” Church should use precisely *four* of the many gospels then floating around to reflect the “Four Corners of the Earth” and the “Four Winds”, he chose ones not just generally amenable to his own theology, but ones which he thought represented the geographic range of earlier Christianity: GMatthew from Judea, GMark from Egypt, GLuke from Syria, and GJohn from Asia (a Catholic revision of some lost Gnostic work with a whole nother, even more obscure history – but to judge from existing fragmentary documents, it was the most popular gospel of the time; so there it is).

                  Reply

               2. Matthew copies at length Mark’s Greek text — indicating Matthew itself was originally composed in Greek. Papias asserts Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew (Aramaic?) but Papias also claims Matthew is a “sayings gospel” (like Q and Thomas). Our Matthew is clearly not a “sayings gospel” so we have to conclude whatever Papias is talking about according to our Eusebius quotation it is not the Gospel of Matthew that we know.

                  Ehrman presents the above argument without any citations but he appears to acknowledge he is not the originator of it when he says “virtually every critical scholar on the planet” disputes Papias’s claim about the Hebrew text of Matthew. I first learned of the arguments from reading Earl Doherty’s works.

                  Reply

                  1. Possibly though we’ve just proposed the resolution. There was an earlier Hebrew Matthew. The one we have today was a later Greek rewrite. Incorporating many Greek, Markan elements.

                     In general, regarding the gospels, I firmly believe that our present forms of them were not the original documents. What we have today is later Roman, Greek rewrites. Even especially, Mark.

                     The name Matthew is originally Hebrew. (So is John, by the way.)

                  2. I know of no reason to think our Gospel according to Matthew was originally associated with the name Matthew.

                     As for a Hebrew original we need to look into studies of the nature of the Greek text and whether there is evidence of it being based on a Hebrew original. I did that many years ago and don’t recall the details but the conclusion was negative.

                  3. Papias suggested it? And his assertion that it was a sayings gospel would confirm my model of an earlier document. Probably Hebrew. Later all but totally effaced, but not completely, by Roman Greek editorialization and interpolation. Probably by the early Roman and Greek churches.

                     In this model, the probably Roman Markan material would have been imposed over, or added alongside, earlier Hebrew.

                     Corresponding to, as part of, the increasing takeover of Judah and Christianity by Greek and Roman forces, churches, congregations, armies.

                  4. Papias can be discarded as evidence for anything related to our canonical gospels — and normally is except by those still bound within the model attributing some veracity to the traditions associated with those gospels.

                     Earl Doherty, Jesus Neither God Nor Man, pp. 467-468

                     A number of fairly secure conclusions can be drawn from these quotations.
                     (1) Papias himself had not seen these documents, let alone possessed copies of them. In regard to “Mark” this is information he has received from “the presbyter.” Although Papias is not specific when he gets to “Matthew” it is likely that the same situation applies there as well. Besides, if he possessed documents containing sayings and deeds of Jesus as recorded by Jesus’ very followers, he would not likely have disparaged written documents in principle in favor of oral tradition, as he does at the end of Eusebius’ quote from his Prologue: “For 1 assumed that what is derived from books does not profit me as much as what is derived from a living and abiding voice.” Thus, it would seem that all of this information comes to Papias second-hand and is recounted from memory. He can witness to nothing other than that certain collections of material were circulating sometime in the early 2nd century, which some people were now assigning to an historical Jesus, as recorded by legendary apostolic figures who had come to be regarded as his followers.

                     (2) Those collections may or may not have circulated under the names of “Mark” and “Matthew.” Papias does not specify that this is what they were called, but simply who the reputed compilers were.

                     (3) It is highly unlikely that these two documents are to be equated with the canonical Gospels now known as Mark and Matthew. In the latter case, Papias states clearly that it was a compilation of sayings. This rules out a narrative work. If it was in Aramaic, it could not be the Gospel of Matthew, since that was a work composed originally in Greek based on the Greek Gospel of Mark. Scholarship has largely abandoned older suggestions that Matthew or any other Gospel existed at an earlier stage in Aramaic. Not even Q, the document used by Matthew and Luke, can be demonstrated to have been written at any stratum in anything other than Greek.

                     As for Papias’ “Mark,” this is referred to as a record of Peter’s recollections of “the Lord’s sayings and doings,” but not “in order” nor with the purpose of “constructing an ordered arrangement of the Lord’s sayings.” While the “doings” suggest anecdotes about deeds of Jesus—probably miracles—the reference to lack of “order” and “arrangement” rules out the narrative Gospel of Mark. Rather, what is suggested is a loose compilation of sayings and anecdotes, probably something along the lines of the Q document which contained sayings and a few miracle and controversy stories reflective of the community’s activities.

                     We might further note that Papias’ lost work is focused on collected sayings of the Lord, which could imply that the documents he mentions conformed to that genre. That these were haphazard, unorganized collections is further suggested by all the apology about them which Papias expresses. This in turn suggests that such collections may have had nothing to do with a Jesus figure originally, and only seemed “unordered” as a picture of his ministry when they were assigned to such a figure.
                     In view of all this, it is surprising how many New Testament scholars have insisted on regarding these remarks as referring to the canonical Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and how they attempt to rationalize those remarks in order to do so.176

                     (4) Some scholars assume that Papias possessed copies of these documents, even that he discussed the Gospel sayings of Jesus in his work. This is patently impossible. Not only does Papias’ language, as quoted by Eusebius, rule this out, not a single one of the fragments (over a dozen) preserved from his Sayings of the Lord Interpreted includes any saying from the canonical Gospels. If Papias had actually discussed anything from the Gospels we know, there can be no doubt that Eusebius, having Papias’ work in front of him, would have thrown a spotlight on it. If sayings and deeds of Jesus as found in Mark and Matthew had been a feature of Papias’ work, later commentators like Philip of Side would hardly have limited themselves to the often ridiculous and repugnant things Papias did have to say.

                     (5) Whatever Papias’ second-hand description referred to, it is possible that traditions like these were drawn on later when it came time, probably a little after Justin, for the Church to decide who might have written the Gospel accounts of Jesus ofNazareth.177

                     Ehrman has also demolished attempts to use Papias as having any relevance to the gospels we know. Just to quote one section of lengthy arguments:

                     There is, though, a still further and even more compelling reason for doubting that we can trust Papias . . . . It is that that we cannot really trust him on much of anything. That may sound harsh, but remember that even the early Christians did not appreciate his work very much and the one comment we have about him personally from an educated church father is that he was remarkably unintelligent.

                     It is striking that some modern authors want to latch on to Papias for his claims that Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels, assuming, as Bauckham does, that he must be historically accurate, when they completely overlook the other things Papias says, things that even these authors admit are not and cannot be accurate. If Papias is not reliable about anything else he says, why does anyone think he is reliable about our Gospels of Matthew and Mark? The reason is obvious. It is because readers want him to be accurate about Matthew and Mark, even though they know that otherwise you can’t rely on him for a second.

                     Ehrman, Bart D. (2016-03-01). Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior (pp. 100-101). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

                     And as I’ve quoted several times before, such warnings against using Papias as evidence for anything are a century old:

                     With regard to the recurrent inclination to pass off Papias’s remarks about the first two Synoptists as “ancient information” and to utilize them in some fashion or other, a somewhat more general observation may not be out of place.

                     The history of classical literature has gradually learned to work with the notions of the literary-historical legend, novella, or fabrication; after untold attempts at establishing the factuality of statements made it has discovered that only in special cases does there exist a tradition about a given literary production independent of the self-witness of the literary production itself; and that the person who utilizes a literary-historical tradition must always first demonstrate its character as a historical document.

                     General grounds of probability cannot take the place of this demonstration.

                     It is no different with Christian authors.

                     In his literary history Eusebius has taken reasonable pains; as he says in the preface he had no other material at his disposal than the self-witness of the books at hand . . . . how much more is this not the situation in the case of the Gospels, whose authors intentionally or unintentionally adhered to the obscurity of the Church, since they neither would nor could be anything other than preachers of the one message, a message that was independent of their humanity? . . . .

                     This is from an academic paper delivered in 1904 by E. Schwartz: “Uber den Tod der Sohne Zebedaei. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesevangeliums” (= Gesammelte Schriften V, 1963,48-123). It is cited in a 1991 chapter by Luise Abramowski titled “The ‘Memoirs of the Apostles’ in Justin” pp.331-332 published in “The Gospel and the Gospels” ed. Peter Stuhlmacher. I have broken up the paragraph for easier reading. Italics are original.

                     In other words, we know absolutely nothing about this name Papias from the writings of Papias himself. We only know what others chose to attribute to him.

                     We have no way of even knowing if Papias was the author’s real name or a nom de plume. (I don’t know how many children were ever named Papias, a name that sounds like “father” to me, back then.) That is, we have no way of knowing who or what Papias was. Was he a literary creation? Was he a late creation who was set in an earlier time for narrative effect? What was his agenda? We know these are all important questions to ask of names whose works we do know a lot more about.

                     We have no way of knowing if Papias was writing a Hellenistic novel filled with spectacular and silly stories. But we do have some fragments that suggest he might have been doing just that. See fragment III for example, and Eusebius’s note that Papias was known for being stupid. Should we suspect Papias of telling a bald-faced lie when he says Judas bloated up like a balloon and was burst asunder by a chariot?

                     We have no way of knowing if what he wrote was considered even by readers of his own day utter nonsense not worthy of being given any credibility at all. We do know it was not preserved, though.

                     We don’t even know when the works attributed to Papias made their first appearance or when they were composed. Many authors create a narrative voice that is set in a much earlier time than that of the real author.

                     In other words, we know virtually zilch about the provenance and authorship of the works of Papias. And this is as much as even the professional historians know!

2. A case can be made that anonymity actually adds to the mystique and importance, and ultimate acceptance of a book. One of the arguments used against heretics was that the author of their divine writings was actually known. There are multiple examples of anonymity in religious literature of the period. There is no reason to doubt that the gospels and Acts were not of the same genre. The eventual attribution of authorship happened long after the books were accepted. I have to agree with Ehrman on this point.

   Reply

   1. Yes. Particularly when he notes that beyond the title, furthermore, the interior text itself dies not suggest a singular reliable author. The extremely equivocal ending of John for example, includes an editorial “we” as commentator on any earlier apostolic source.

      Reply

   2. This is an interesting idea and one I have sometimes thought about, especially in the context of the anonymous historical books of the Jewish Scriptures. But then there are two factors that lead me to reconsider: an article I cite in the above post points out that anonymity was a feature of ancient Near Eastern historical writings; and the lack of authority that is evident in the gospels in their earlier years. On the former, I don’t know if the anonymity was a device used to express divine/inspired authority (as distinct from a person who writes from the context of a narrow/filtered perspective) or if there are other reasons to account for it. On the latter, it is evident that the first gospel (known to us as Mark) was not considered authoritative because Matthew and Luke, and I also think “John”, felt quite free to change it, to engage in dialogue with it. And ditto if Luke used Matthew, and if Luke also used John or if John used any of the others. We see the same in the OT writings where, for example, it is evident that Isaiah and Micah are in dialogue with each other, each expressing their own variant of common themes.

      So it does appear that anonymity was not interpreted by contemporaries as an “authoritative” or “mysterious” device.

      Reply

3. Even though the gospels appear to convey history, there is no reason to trust them. If you would like to read the short story I published about the possibility that the stories of Jesus’ divinity and miracles were LIES, it is published here:

   http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/the-eternal-return.html

   For an overview of the most recent arguments I have on the topic of “Jesus’ divinity and miracles as NOBLE LIES,” see the five or six posted comments I have on this blog page:

   http://vridar.org/2015/09/21/comments-open/#comment-73290

   My name is John MacDonald

   Reply

   1. Thanks John. I enjoy your regular posts. And I sometimes see religion as simply a lie as well. Though I usually avoid the term for various reasons.

      May look you up sometime later.

      Reply

      1. You should check out the short story. It’s really controversial lol.

         Reply

4. Hi,

   Great post as usual. A while ago you posted a link to bible-related forum, but I forgot what post it was in or the name of the forum. I wonder if you could provide a link to the forum? The name of the forum was written using Greek letters.

   Cheers,
   Tim.

   Reply

   1. It was probably the Biblical Criticism & History Forum

      Reply

5. Ehrman in his new book says the crucifixion by the known historical figure Pilate is historical bedrock (Jesus Before The Gospels, 149). I don’t know why he thinks this, because the mention of the Census of the known historical figure Quirinius is also indicated in the gospels as connecting to Jesus, but there is no reason to think this event has any real connection to Jesus. There seems to be a bias among the academy that if a real historical personage is mentioned in the gospels in connection to Jesus (like Pilate or John The Baptist), the rule of thumb is to accept the relationship as historical unless there is direct evidence suggesting otherwise (the Census of Quirinius). This is a paralogism of course.

   The Census of Quirinius was supposedly a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was born at the time of the census and during the reign of Herod the Great, but Herod died in 4 BCE; no satisfactory explanation has been put forward which could resolve the contradiction.

   The point is, there is no more reason to suppose Pilate is connected to Jesus, than to suppose the Census by Quirinius was. The most parsimonious explanation seems to be that the gospel writers were constructing historical fiction by including famous personages in the tale, much like an encounter with Abe Lincoln might appear in an historical fiction novel about The Civil War.

   Reply

   1. There is indeed 1) no historical reason for supporting specifically the crucifixion as bedrock.

      Some might 2) support it thanks to the Criterion of Embarrassment. Which says that the whole idea of our savior dying is so illogical, no one would make it up. But this and other Criteria were recently debunked.

      So finally, the 3) real reason Ehrman takes the crucifixion as bedrock, is that recent evangelical dogma demanded it.

      Over the last ten or twenty years or more, a curious new doctrine has become enormously popular in evangelical circles. It was based allegedly on a line from Paul. That without the crucifixion, the whole of Christianity collapses. The notion of Jesus dying for our sins, for example, presumably, required that death.

      And so? In recent decades, the crucifixion has been taken by many churches for the most important idea of all. And? It became in effect, the main shibboleth, the main litmus test, to use to see if someone is Christian. And to see if you yourself are Christian. Do you believe that the crucifixion was real? You are allowed to disbelieve everything else. But if you believe this fig leaf, then you can rest easy that in spite if all your doubts, you have not left Christianity, to become an unbeliever.

      It’s just a fig leaf. But it’s become enormously popular. And for that matter, it allowed millions to question almost everything in Christianity, without troubling their conscience.

      So the real reason Ehrman embraces the crucifixion as more real than anything, is indeed not based on history. But on a fairly new evangelical, theological doctrine. One that in some ways is conservative. But in other ways, rather liberal. In either case though, it is based on a perceived theological need. Not on History.

      Ehrman is three fourths, or even nine tenths of the way, to being a full critical thinker. But after all, it’s hard to shake off 40 years of church and Sunday School and Moody Bible College, and seminary. And then too, Ehrman probably deliberately makes some concessions to the huge audience of people. Who likewise, want to make the move to full rational objectivity. But who are not quite ready to cast off the last rope tying them to shore.

      Reply

      1. Curious. The entire above post has one letter of the alphabet taken out of everything. The first person letter: I, or “i.”

         Reply

         1. VIRUS ALERT? JUST MY COMPUTER OR YOURS?

            THE LOWER CASE LETTER “I” IS BEING TAKEN OUT OF COMMENTS

            Reply

            1. I’m seeing this as well, on comments from posts from years ago. Must be a very weird bug somewhere.

               Reply

            2. All is well. No malware here, just a weird bug, as James noted.

               Reply

      2. Good point about the crucifixion being a theological (as distinct from a historical) fact. I particularly like it because it supports what I have been saying for some years now — at least since this 2007 post: (revised) Spong on Jesus’ historicity: John the Baptist and the Crucifixion 😉 Glad to see it resurface here.

         So I see I slept through some drama last night. Glad all is fixed. Thanks to everyone involved.

         Reply

         1. I’m sure we’ve all gone through some evolutionary changes over the years. But I’ve always been intrigued by that terminology. And it seems very appropriate, and easy to prove. Considering that many advocates of a strong historicity, have ThD – or Theology Doctor – after their names.

            And? By far the vast majority of religion writers supporting an ” historical” Jesus, actually know next to nothing about the general practices of actual historians. (At best they know only highly selected and misrepresentative parts.)

            Reply

         2. Paul says clearly that the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection ALL served a theological purpose for the first Christians. He writes “Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (1 Cor 15: 3-4).” Standard interpretation protocol says we must set them aside in terms of historicity, because the original Christians had reason to invent them. As Ehrman says about biblical hermeneutics, we assert that events are likely to belong to the historical Jesus when these events “do not appear to be remembered in any prejudicial way – for example, because they represent episodes of Jesus’ life that Christians particularly would have wanted to say happened for their own, later, benefit (Jesus Before The Gospels, 148).” Where Ehrman’s philosophy of biblical hermeneutics falls apart is that he thinks that an event can be considered to be historical because it is mundane, even though this analysis would force us to include the mundane events in the apocryphal books about Jesus into the historical Jesus’ biography.

            Reply

            1. Then too, the fact that a piece of writing contains mundane things, does not prove that it was was true. Historical novels often put fictional characters, into real historical settings.

               And for that matter? Even mundane statements themselves can be false. Liars often lie about mundane things. I might say “the cat is at grandma’s house,” when I know perfectly well the cat is squished in the road, two blocks down the street.

               Then too finally, people often are simply honestly wrong about mundane matters. They believe and say the tree is an oak, when it is really a pine tree.

               Mere mundanity therefore, is no guarantee of the truthfulness or accuracy of any given statement.

               Ehrman therefore, like other supporters of historical Jesus, seems incredibly naive here.

               Reply

               1. If it sounds plausible or everyday, then it must be true?

                  The methodological assumptions of Historical Jesus theories are clearly absurd cases of faith-based wishful thinking..

                  Nobody really believes such things in real life. Only in historical Jesus studies.

                  Reply

                  1. I really enjoy posting here at Vridar. Neil has a wealth of knowledge! I learn a lot.

                  2. Complimenting Neil, I sometimes try to fill in with obvious basics, that evangelists often seem to miss.

                     I’m guessing most readers here can skip ahead of some of this. But I’m throwing in a few simple lessons in, for instance, logic, now and then. Just in case we have an evangelical reader or two, who wants a little background.

                     No point in preaching just to the choir.

                  3. Regular complementary comments end up dominating the comments. Remember our comments moderation policy and the maxim that less is more. We once had a Brettongarcia here who outwore his welcome and overwhelming presence with volumes of “complementary comments” that really belonged on a separate blog of his own.

6. there is a problem with these responses. there are missing letters in every word

   Reply

   1. ANYONE KNOW HOW TO CONTACT NEIL OR ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTLY, AND SOON?

      Reply

      1. PRESUMABLY NEIL GETS NOTIFICATIONS OF ALL THESE COMMENTS, BUT IT’S LATE AT NIGHT IN AUSTRALIA.

         IF HE DOES SEE THIS, THE RESOLUTION IS HERE: https://wordpress.org/support/topIc/jetpack-393-shortcode-embeds-cause-mIssIng-letters

         (CHANGE UPPER CASE ‘I’ TO LOWER CASE ‘I’ IN ABOVE URL).

         Reply

         1. I’m looking into it right now. –Tim

            Reply

         2. Thanks for the tip, James. And now it appears the latest version of Jetpack I installed fixed the problem for good.

            Reply

            1. Thanks, Tim, all working here now.

               Reply

7. Hope I didn’t push a few wrong buttons inputting a few comments ago. Might have though.

   Reply

   1. 8:08 UTC comment?

      Reply

      1. Looks fine. I’m so relieved I didn’t break it!

         Reply
8. Pingback: Anonymous Gospels |

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.