Lawyerskeptic said
Bart speculates that the Gospels might have been written anonymously because they would be perceived to have greater authority. Old Testament historical Scripture like Judges and 1 Kings were anonymous and gospel authors might have wanted their histories of Jesus to be accorded equal respect. Bart D. Ehrman, Forged 223-25 (HarperCollins 2011).

Sometime in the second century, noncanonical Gospels appeared which claimed apostolic authorship, such as the Gospel of Peter. Around the same time, the canonical Gospels were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Was there some sea change in the second century that made Gospels more authoritative if written by named authors? Was there some other reason – other than making them seem more authoritative – for putting names on the Gospels?

Not just authoritative by putting names to the gospels  – the names add to the illusion of historicity. A sea change in the second century? I would suggest from political allegory to being viewed, accepted, as history. Memories fade with time. If the gospel story was known in the first century, either from a written source or orally, then those aware of Hasmonean/Jewish history would be able to identify that history in the gospel allusions, reflections or echoes of that history. As time went on memory gave way to viewing the gospel story itself as history. Which, of course, is the default view of the gospel story today. However, to assume that that is how the gospel story was always viewed is without warrant. All it took for the gospel story to be viewed as history was for historical memory of Hasmonean/Jewish history to fade into the background. Today, our historical memories are held on tape  –  easily replayed when required  –  at our fingertips with just a click of the mouse. Memories, oral tradition, in a non-technical world, would very soon become clouded over by the ravages of old age. That is one reason, to my mind, that the gospel writers sought to reflect Hasmonean/Jewish history within the format of a political allegory. A story that encapsulates historical memory for all time  –  even at the danger of that story itself being viewed as history once historical memory faded with the passing of time. However, Hasmonean/Jewish history would always remain tied up with the gospel story  –  thereby enabling historical research of that story to identify the historical memories it alludes to.

Lawyerskeptic said
maryhelena

I have not read about the Gospels being “political allegory.” You mean like Animal Farm by George Orwell is political allegory about communism? What is the gospel allegory?

Literature like Animal Farm is of interest when viewing the gospel story as basically a political allegory. 

Animal Farm is an ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Other allegorical narratives such as The Wizard of Oz, Pilgrim’s Progress and The Crucible come to mind.

Wikipedia: The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come; Delivered under the Similitude of a Dream is a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** has been translated into more than 200 languages, and has never been out of print.

Wikipedia: Baum did not offer any conclusive proof that he intended his novel to be a political allegory. Historian Ranjit S. Dighe wrote that for sixty years after the book’s publication, “virtually nobody” had such an interpretation until ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Not only did Baum draw inspiration from the American land around him, but he also created Oz to display an American utopia where the issues of the day were solved.

Wikipedia:The Crucible is a 1953 play by the American playwright ** you do not have permission to see this link ** accused communists.

A political allegory approach to the gospel narrative offers, to my mind, a more rational explanation of it’s content. The options are not just some sort of mythic fantasy or literal history…

History, reality, the world they lived in, was very important to both the OT writers and the NT writers. As Ehrman recently wrote in a blog post, historical context was very important.

Now I need to explain why the “prophetic” views came to change.  To make sense of the change I have to sketch a set of historical events that the people of Israel had to live through.   Some people find these kinds of historical sketches fascinating; others find them dull as dirt.  But in either event, you really have to know what happened among ancient Jews in order to make sense of what their theological beliefs were, since these beliefs were molded by and informed by nothing so much as the historical context out of which they emerged.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

What was the gospel political allegory about? It’s a story set during the time of Roman occupation of Judea. The Romans had executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus in 37 b.c.e. Under Roman occupation any remembrance of Antigonus would be curtailed. Whatever were the prophetic views of the Antigonus history would have to be recounted via a story. Writing stories, writing historical fiction or pseudo-history, was what OT prophets did. i.e. they interpreted their history as such and such  –  and recorded their prophetic interpretations as ‘history’. The pattern was set long before NT writers put ink on parchment. History, Jewish history, is mixed up with salvation history, with prophetic history, interpretations of history.

The Roman execution of Antigonus was not, of course, the only history that concerned the NT writers. But that history is the foundation, as it were, for the political allegory the NT writers wrote. Yes, there is theology, philosophy and mythology within the gospel narrative. But what comes first is, as Ehrman has expressed in that blog post, history. History was primary for the gospel writers  –  just as history is primary for Jews to this day. Ideas might come and go  –  historical facts  –  such as can be objectively ascertained  –  are primary.

As to further content of the gospel political allegory  –  I put up a chart on another thread.

Historical chart of Hasmonean/Jewish history as reflected in the gospel story.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

——————————–

Greg Matthews said 
Have you ever been able to summarize your clap trap in a paragraph or less?  My god, I know quantum physicists who can explain string theory in less space.

”…clap trap….”

Not nice, Greg, not nice at all.

Mockery and ridicule are a poor substitute for argument….

Greg Matthews said
No, there is no reason they might not have written in Aramaic if they weren’t illiterate, however, since Greek was for the educated if they’d had any education at all they would have probably done it in Greek.   There was a major Greek settlement very near to Galilee where they would have been plenty of Hellenists.  Note, there are some Aramaic words, and at least one Aramaic phrase I think, found in the Gospels.

Are you referring to (demonstrating my complete ignorance of the geography) Tarsus?  

 Some christians like to point out that some of the disciples who were in the fishing business , had servants and therefore were (by a stretch only an apologist could find acceptable) able to read and write. I’m inclined to think they were illiterate, but even if they could read and write, the question seems to be why they would favor written accounts vis the dominant means of oral transmission; particularly since they seemed to believe that the end was imminent.  When you expect the kingdom to arrive, like a thief in the night, do you take the time to write out your thoughts or do you set out to tell as many people as you can?

To be sure, we know Paul wrote letters and wasn’t the phrase “like a thief in the night,” Paul’s simile?  Yes, and Paul did both, but there’s yet another reason to think that they favored oral transmission: tradition. Their master, according to biblical accounts, went around preaching. There’s not a single reference in the New Testament about Jesus composing anything so much as a letter or sermon. Paul by contrast, not only had an advanced education, but also seems to have written letters when he was unable to be present. This is to say, I think, Paul also favored oral transmission, but wrote letters out of practical consideration.

maryhelena said ”…clap trap….” Not nice, Greg, not nice at all.Mockery and ridicule are a poor substitute for argument….

That all depends on whether one is responding to an actual argument or, as it were, clap trap.  If you are making actual arguments, it is the best kept secret on this thread, maryhelena. To paraphrase, that estimable philosopher, Mr. Forrest Gump, clap trap is as clap trap does.