Many scholars (including Dr. Ehrman I think) propose that the four canonical gospels circulated anonymously.
That is their thesis, put straightforwardly.
Now, perhaps I have misunderstood their historical position.
But if I have not, then I think their position requires a lot of clarification.
I want to be very VERY clear: I am not here defending the traditional ascriptions of the gospels; that is, I am not defending that the first gospel was written by one of the twelve disciples of Jesus or that the second was written by an associate of Peter. What I am questioning is that these gospels began circulating anonymously.
For the sake of argument, let us take the first canonical gospel. Let us suppose that the traditional ascription is wrong–the actual author’s name was Eleazar. Through some strange historic process, his gospel came to be attributed to “a Matthew”, and, eventually “a disciple of Jesus”.
What I am having difficulty with is the proposition that these canonical gospels circulated, from the their very origins, anonymously.
Let me set the stage:
Eleazar (a Jew unknown to modernity) decided to write a bios of Jesus. Yet he did so (for reasons unknown to us) in secrecy. His friends, family, community of Christians (at this point in history, a tight knit of people, perhaps even disciples)…none of them knew he was writing this bios, which no doubt took him more than the time it takes us to read it. In other words, despite how modern scholars seem to treat the work, he may very well have spent several months working on it.
But according to Dr. Ehrman (as I understand him) this Eleazar (working on Matthew) was sooo secretive that neither his wife or friends or local Christianity even knew he was working on it. Eleazar wanted (for whatever reason) Matthew to be completely anonymous.
And then on night, when Eleazar felt Matthew was complete, he stole out into the night, taking his masterpiece past his servants, and wife, sneaking out past them into the night. He took his book and, so as that no one would know who wrote it, cast it upon the sea of Galilee….a kind of message in a bottle.
…and fortune beyond fortune, not only did this bios in a jar find its way to the coast, it yet found its way into the hands of a Christian Jew!!! What’s more, a Christian Jew that could read.
Now remember…this gospel was anonymous. Eleazar made no stamp upon his work.
The Christian Jew at the beach simply loved this work on its own merit; he knew nothing for authority. This book found on the seaside was accepted not on authority, but on…………WHAT?
And therein lies my question, nay, my attack on the position of Dr. Ehrman and others who claim the gospels originally circulated without known authorship.
Seems to the more historically plausible situation is that all four gospels at first spread with everyone–immediate family, friends, church affiliates–knew that the author (Eleazar, for example) was writing a bios of Jesus. It seems to me far more historically plausible that numerous people knew he was doing this. (one can merely ask Dr. Ehrman when was the last time he worked on a project and did not tell even his wife about it). It seems to me more plausible that when this Eleazar handed off his finished work (our Matthew) that the persons who took it knew Eleazar. It seems to me plausible that when they took it to a new community to be read that that new community either already knew the author of the work they were receiving, or at least wanted to know his identity.
It seems to me that Matthew was well received, read, and preserved, not bc simply it was a damned good read, but bc. everyone already knew where it came from.
Now any good argument should recognize and announce good contrary arguments that could injure it. here are some. How many anonymous bioses are there in fact?; are they attributed in later documents to names?; do we know that these attributions are in fact false? If so, then my argument, though not defeated, yet has an uphill climb.
But in the absence of those obstacles, I think it very unlikely that the gospels circulated “anonymously”. I think lots knew that someone was writing our Matthew. I think the first readers of our “matthew” knew exactly where it came from. I think when they forwarded it to other communities, everyone knew whom they were sending and whom they were getting. and I think this on the grounds of common historical sense.
The gospel authors were known, 80 – 100 CE.
Paul and Luke knew of other gospels?
I think Josephus would have known who the original gospel writers were–gospels written before he died.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Remember, Nina Livesey said “pseudonymous collection of letters/literature,” so, no, there may not have been widespread knowledge of who the original authors were.
BUT, in that 80 – 100 CE time frame, the ghost writers did not have to reveal themselves.
So, first I don’t think it is that hard to write a book without telling anyone. You asked if Bart has written a book without telling anyone. I don’t know; probably not. But if he wanted to, I don’t see any reason a professional academic couldn’t. Professional academics spend a lot of time alone in their office. Just don’t tell people that one of the things you are working on is this new book. I’ve never written a book without telling anyone, but I have gotten pretty far into big projects without telling anyone about it, and it wouldn’t have been hard to just keep going if I had wanted to keep it a secret.
Whoever wrote the gospels was likely from the upper class, given that he was literate, had access to a relatively large sheet of papyrus, and had the leisure to engage in long-form composition. The individual may very well have had a large house where he could just go into his library and expect to be left alone without raising any eyebrows. Even if he left the manuscript sitting out and someone else in the household stumbled on the MS, it would only matter if that person was literate and indiscreet.
As to getting it out of the house undetected, there would be no need for such subterfuge. A scroll doesn’t have a cover with a title. If he is the sort of literate man who has scrolls, he could just walk around with it, and no one would have any reason to be suspicious–maybe it is a business document, maybe it is pleasure reading he plans to do, maybe it is gift he has for a friend he is meeting later. And if he did, for some reason, need to hide even the fact that he had a scroll, he could just put it in a bag.
As to how he puts it into circulation: Well, it could just be the classic found book. Given that he was presumably a man of means, and may have traveled, he could claim he discovered it while on a trip (perhaps in the library of a Christian he met in a distant city, or maybe it was just in an unknown book-sellers stall in the forum of a distant metropolis). We know from the Didache that there were wandering apostles and prophets in the early Church who would show up unknown and unannounced; perhaps he would claim he got it from one of them. Maybe he even involved one of his servants in the deceit somehow, putting himself even farther from the discovery.
Another possibility is that the author was not independently wealthy, but was a professional bookseller. But that doesn’t change much. For him to be sitting at a desk copying a manuscript would not raise any eyebrows. And he could use many of the same unverifiable but plausible backstories to explain how he came into possession of the text.
At any rate, your objections would equally preclude people forging books and getting them successfully into circulation, yet we know that that happened many times. If it is possible and indeed common at the time to forge books and get them circulating undetected, why would it be any more difficult to pen an anonymous work and get it into circulation?
Does the effect of imitating the Scriptures work if the initial audience knows full well who the author is?
I’ve always thought that that device was meant to give the work gravitas; it just is written. There is a peculiar and paradoxical appearance of authority that come from anonymity.
You can see the effect today: “They say that . . . ” sounds a lot more impressive than “Joe, the local lush, says . . .” or “I just made this ghost story up on the spot . . .”
It is just more compelling if it comes from an unknown source who might actually have had some special insight. It helps with the suspension of disbelief.
I’m not saying this was a deliberate attempt to deceive by ticking people into putting more credence into the work than it deserved (though it may have been), but even taken just as a literary effect, it seems like it wouldn’t work if the reader had to pretend he didn’t know exactly who wrote the work.
There is a thin line between being a good story teller, (helping your audience suspend disbelief, helping the audience really enter into the story by making it immersive and vivid) and deceiving them.
The anonymous aspect of authorship was who or whom had translated the Greek. The Greek translators assign the original sources as being the collective authorship. Whoever had the greatest authority amongst the original sources was declared in power as being the Sole Author, but not as being the Christ (κατα). The gospels are against (κατα) the Sole Author as being the Christ. (κατα)
🤷♂️
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)