Why Most Scholars Agree on the Anonymity of the Four Gospels

[Logicman]

If that is false, then show the original Polycarp writing.

As if you would believe even that.

So now we'll add Polycarp to the long, long list of ancient people, scholars, and others who have to ALL be wrong in order for Ramoss - the biased, anti-Christianity pundit - to be right.

 

[Logicman]

Mark, Matthew and Luke were all common names during that time.

There were also a lot of people deceived by Satan then too.

 

[RAMOSS]

As if you would believe even that.

So now we'll add Polycarp to the long, long list of ancient people, scholars, and others who have to ALL be wrong in order for Ramoss - the biased, anti-Christianity pundit - to be right.

On the contrary, it's known as 'you can't show that Polycarp actually said that. Show me Polycarp's actual writing.. then we can make an assessment.

 

[Logicman]

On the contrary, it's known as 'you can't show that Polycarp actually said that. Show me Polycarp's actual writing.. then we can make an assessment.

Go fly a kite. There's NO evidence, no matter how profound - that you will ever accept.

 

[RAMOSS]

Go fly a kite. There's NO evidence, no matter how profound - that you will ever accept.

Well, none that you have at least. That's because, all of the evidence the Christs have for the last 2000 years is very weak and has been corrupted by liars and forgeries.

 

[Logicman]

Well, none that you have at least. That's because, all of the evidence the Christs have for the last 2000 years is very weak and has been corrupted by liars and forgeries.

Horse manure.

 

[RAMOSS]

Horse manure.

You make sarcastic remarks but you can't show that is' wrong.

 

[Somerville]

Since I'm just another anonymous commenter, I thought I would continue supporting my claim about Gospel anonymity by quoting some of those 'librul' academic types.

Larry Hurtado is an internationally respected New Testament scholar

He is a professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at The University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He is an expert of the Gospels (esp. Gospel of Mark), the Apostle Paul, Early Christology, the Jewish Background of the New Testament, New Testament Textual Criticism.

Here's a bit of what he wrote on the Anonymity of the Gospels

Anonymous Gospels

Although early in their circulation the NT Gospels were ascribed to the familiar four figures (probably sometime early 2nd century), they actually originated as anonymous, which deserves more notice than scholars have typically given to the matter. Noting that many OT books and several NT books are anonymous, David Aune judged this “a striking literary feature” that, nevertheless, “has been almost completely neglected.”
(. . .)
For, in the literary environment of the authors of the Gospels, the overwhelmingly customary practice was for authors of literary works (such as historical or biographical narratives) to identify themselves, and claim credit for their works. This was often done as part of the formal prologues to their works.[ii] So, to release substantial works such as the NT Gospels anonymously was very unusual, amounting to a significant departure from literary practices of that time.[iii]
(. . .)
As we move into the second century, however, the four Gospels were ascribed to the now-traditional authors. But, as others have noted, the “superscriptions” that identify them, for example, “the Gospel according to Matthew (κατα Μαθθαιον) are all unusually phrased.[vi] More typically, the name of an author was placed it in a genitive construction in relationship to the work. The phrasing of these superscriptions identifies “the Gospel” as the subject shared by all four texts, each one of which presents a version of it.

The anonymity of the NT Gospels also contrasts with the more direct authorial claims of subsequent “apocryphal” gospels. For example, the opening lines of the Gospel of Thomas identify the text as “the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, as Judas Thomas wrote them.”

references:
David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 35.
[ii] This practice was typically followed by Jewish authors of the Greco-Roman period too. E.g., the prologue to Josephus’ Jewish War, 1.1-3.
[iii] In John 21:24, an unidentified “we” vouch for the truthfulness of “the disciple who witnesses about these things and wrote these things,” which appears to point to the putative author of the preceding Gospel of John. But this figure is not named. Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1 address these texts to a Theophilos (not otherwise known), but the author does not identify himself.
[vi] Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000), 48-53

 

[Cephus]

Well, none that you have at least. That's because, all of the evidence the Christs have for the last 2000 years is very weak and has been corrupted by liars and forgeries.

Don't you just love the typical religious response? "You won't believe me anyhow so I'm not even going to try!" Yes, we don't believe you because you DON'T try! You have nothing but a bunch of handwaving and blind faith and you think it ought to convince us, but it doesn't. It's because their beliefs are not based on a rational evaluation of the existing evidence, it's based on wishful thinking and they think everyone else ought to be the same.

Except we're not stupid. If they want to convince us, then they have to do so with evidence. We're very clear what evidence will convince us. They just don't have any evidence and they're trying to cover up that fact with false bravado. It's kind of pathetic when you think about it.

 

[Daisy]

Don't you just love the typical religious response? "You won't believe me anyhow so I'm not even going to try!" Yes, we don't believe you because you DON'T try! You have nothing but a bunch of handwaving and blind faith and you think it ought to convince us, but it doesn't. It's because their beliefs are not based on a rational evaluation of the existing evidence, it's based on wishful thinking and they think everyone else ought to be the same.

Except we're not stupid. If they want to convince us, then they have to do so with evidence. We're very clear what evidence will convince us. They just don't have any evidence and they're trying to cover up that fact with false bravado. It's kind of pathetic when you think about it.

66 books, written by 40 different writers, over a period of 1500+ years, would be evidence enough to convince anyone...unless it happens to be about God...go figure...:roll:

It's kind of pathetic when you think about it...:2razz:

 

[Somerville]

66 books, written by 40 different writers, over a period of 1500+ years, would be evidence enough to convince anyone...unless it happens to be about God...go figure...:roll:

It's kind of pathetic when you think about it...:2razz:

Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.

Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?

 

[RAMOSS]

Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.

Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?

Only the first 24 count

 

[Daisy]

Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.

Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?

:roll:...

ev·i·denceDictionary result for evidence
/ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; support for, backing for, reinforcement for, grounds for

https://www.google.com/search?q=evi...2j35i39l2j0.5056j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[<alt>doxygen]

66 books, written by 40 different writers, over a period of 1500+ years, would be evidence enough to convince anyone...unless it happens to be about God...go figure...:roll:

It's kind of pathetic when you think about it...:2razz:

That makes perfect sense. God asks a lot from us, does he not? The events described in the bible that make god God are termed supernatural, because we have no natural explanation for them.

Thus, the proof must be able to get us to do what the religion asks of us, and convince us that things we have never experienced and know of no one who's experienced them really happened.

I'll add that the story is far from logical, at least as told. Perhaps it was dumbed down a bit for ancient minds, but it is what it is.

 

[Somerville]

:roll:...



https://www.google.com/search?q=evi...2j35i39l2j0.5056j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

OK, I agree that you have provided a definition for the noun - evidence - now, can you supply the asked-for evidence which supports your earlier statement?

 

[Daisy]

OK, I agree that you have provided a definition for the noun - evidence - now, can you supply the asked-for evidence which supports your earlier statement?

So you admit you don't understand the definition well enough to recognize evidence when it's given...got it...

 

[RAMOSS]

So you admit you don't understand the definition well enough to recognize evidence when it's given...got it...

The thing is the 66 books is the claim. You are mixing up the concept of 'claim' with the concept of 'evidence'.

 

[Daisy]

The thing is the 66 books is the claim. You are mixing up the concept of 'claim' with the concept of 'evidence'.

It is not a claim, it is a fact...there are 66 individual books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years...

 

[RAMOSS]

It is not a claim, it is a fact...there are 66 individual books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years...

It's a fact that there are at least 66 books... and more than 40 people writing is not releavent to the contents of the books being the claim.

 

[Daisy]

It's a fact that there are at least 66 books... and more than 40 people writing is not releavent to the contents of the books being the claim.

Sure it is, as well as the period of time it took to write all 66 books...

 

[RAMOSS]

Sure it is, as well as the period of time it took to write all 66 books...

Why?

It's still a claim

 

[Somerville]

Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.

Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?

It is not a claim, it is a fact...there are 66 individual books written by 40 different men over a period of 1500+ years...

The thing is the 66 books is the claim. You are mixing up the concept of 'claim' with the concept of 'evidence'.

It's a fact that there are at least 66 books... and more than 40 people writing is not releavent to the contents of the books being the claim.

From the beginning: Elvira stated that 66 books written by 40 men over 1500+ years are "evidence" for God.

I asked - How are books evidence for the existence of a deity?
BUT, I also meant, and should have been clearer about my intentions, when I asked for 'evidence'. What is the external evidence that "40 men" wrote the books? No women allowed? Why couldn't there have been more than 40 writers - or fewer? What is the evidence for a period of compostion that lasted for 1500 years?

 

[RAMOSS]

From the beginning: Elvira stated that 66 books written by 40 men over 1500+ years are "evidence" for God.

I asked - How are books evidence for the existence of a deity?
BUT, I also meant, and should have been clearer about my intentions, when I asked for 'evidence'. What is the external evidence that "40 men" wrote the books? No women allowed? Why couldn't there have been more than 40 writers - or fewer? What is the evidence for a period of compostion that lasted for 1500 years?

Well, there was a piece of jewelry found that contained a Jewish prayer dating from around 600 to 700 bce, so it seems the least part of it was in existence around then. Of course, many of the hymns and psalms were actually plagiarized from the Urgartic Bible. A copy of that on clay tablets was found in the ruins of Ur dating around 1400 bce. That is no surprise, since one of the stories in Genesis say that Abraham was from the city of Ur. some of the psalms actually make more sense in that language, since it appears there were errors in translation into the Hebrew from earlier language.

As for when the Jewish scriptures were compiled and written down, I think the consensus is about 600 to 700 bce. The oldest Hebrew text that was on pottery was from about the 10th century bce (around the time attributed to King David). .. which makes the claim for a 600 to 700 bce compiling of the Hebrew texts quite feasible. If I remember correctly, there was a pendant that was found with a fragment of a prayer on it that dated to the 7th century, but it could be very well that the prayer predates the actual writing of the Torah.

Just to make it clear, the oldest hebrew text found from the 10th century was NOT scripture, but was dealing with everyday life. The fragments did imply that literacy was wider spread than what was previously assumed for that time period.

 

[Cephus]

Books and the words to be read within those books are not evidence. They are testimony to nothing more than the BELIEFS of the writers, sometimes supported by external evidence and sometimes not.

Where do you get 'evidence' for the statement -- "66 books, written . . ., over a period of 1500+ years?

The Bible is the claim. Now where is the evidence that shows the claim to be true? The religious have nothing at all to present.

 

[Omega Man]

Of course, many of the hymns and psalms were actually plagiarized from the Urgartic Bible. A copy of that on clay tablets was found in the ruins of Ur dating around 1400 bce.

Ugarit was in what is now northwestern Syria, whereas Ur of the Chaldees was in what is now southern Iraq.


OM