(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...In response to yesterday’s post, I received a seemingly simple question that is both intriguing and complex. I will devote two posts to giving an answer
QUESTION:
Why were the gospels written anonymously? Was this the usual practice with this type of account in those times?
RESPONSE:
It’s a bit surprising that more attention hasn’t been paid to this question by scholars, who, as a rule, are *far* more interested in proving that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the people named in their (current) titles than in exploring the issue of why the authors never named themselves. In this post I’ll deal with the phenomenon of anonymous writings *generally* in the ancient world; in the following post I’ll elaborate a suggestion I make here, but do not develop at any length, about the Gospels in particular.
The following has been drawn from my discussion in my scholarly book Forgery and Counterforgery. But apart
**********************************************************************************************
There are far fewer anonymous writings from antiquity – and from Christian antiquity – than of other kinds of writing (orthonymous, falsely ascribed, forged). The reason is quite simple: anonymous works were almost always…
To read the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog. Joining is easy and cheap — about *half* a Big Mac a month. And it’s *so* much healthier for you. Why not join? All membership fees go to charity!
Is there evidence of anything else written by Matthew and Mark that can be used to verify their gospels via literary style, etc.? Does the gospel of John’s writing style match 1,2 & 3 John and is there evidence of any other writings of John? The same questions for Luke and Acts?
No on Matthew and Luke. The style of the Johannine epistles is similar but not identical. Compare the prologues of each — similar but probably not by the same hand (the one in 1 John is not nearly as eloquent).
For a long time, it was my mistaken impression that the authors of the gospels themselves ascribed them to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John–if not as an attempt at forgery, then as an homage, a claim to be writing in their tradition.
That horror of a vaccuum is a widespread thing today–we wish to believe we know, even when we don’t, and probably can’t.
In “The Devil’s Dictionary,” Ambrose Bierce took issue with the notion that the three words people least want to say are “I was wrong.” He claimed they were “I deliberately lied.”
“I don’t know” is certainly worthy of consideration in that dispute.
Dr. Ehrman, I try to answer such questions by first trying to answer the opposite question, and then using the answer to the opposite question to answer the original question. For instance, in my own area of research, I’m confronted with the perennial question asked by neuroscientists: why do we sleep? Well, the way I answer that question is by first asking the opposite question: why are we awake? You see, that question is much easier to answer. We are awake because we are mobile organisms who need to negotiate our environment and interact with objects like food, predators and mates. If we do not have the need to be mobile, then we do not need to be conscious, because being conscious at those times is a waste of energy. In other words, it’s not the state of being asleep that needs a purpose; it’s the state of being awake that needs the purpose. When being awake no longer serves that purpose, we go back to being asleep.
Anyway, the question of anonymous writing can be answered using the same method. Instead of asking why anyone would write something anonymously, we should ask the opposite question: why write something with a name attached to it? That question is much easier to answer. The quick answer is you attach your name to your writing so as to get credit for it. In modern times, such credit is far more important than it was in ancient times. A modern person would like credit not just for the acclaim but for any monetary compensation that comes from selling copies of the work. In ancient times, however, the credit consisted almost entirely of acclaim, praise, fame, etc.
But the most common reason for attaching a name to a piece of writing, more so in ancient times than even today, is for the authority that the name gives the writing. For instance, you would be more inclined to read a book written by Barack Obama than a book written by Joe Schmoe the Burger King manager from Pensacola, Florida. The book by Obama is certainly going to have his name — BARACK OBAMA — in huge letters on the from cover, probably bigger than the book title itself, along with a full size photo of the man. Meanwhile, if Joe Schmoe manages to get his book published, he would be lucky to have his name legible on the cover; in such a case, the publisher would probably opt for a provocative title instead.
So let’s reverse course and apply this logic to the original question. Why would someone write something anonymously? Clearly, it’s because the author doesn’t feel the need to get credit for the work (for whatever reason), and, more importantly, the author’s name doesn’t attach any authority to the writing. So if a writer’s name does not add authority to a writing, why bother reading a work that does not come from an authority? The answer to that question is the reader of the work isn’t concerned with the authority of the author. That is, for example, the reader isn’t concerned whether the writing is a genuine letter from Paul, or that the writing was written by an eyewitness of Jesus. The reader is only concerned with the content of the writing itself. And the question of why a reader would only be concerned with the content itself is a whole other question that would necessitate a long explanation. Let’s just say there are two basic answers to this last question: the document is “internal” — meaning the author/s and the reader/s is/are the same person/people; and/or the work was not composed by one person but by a group (or shall we say a committee?) of authors, who were merely seeking to compile many documents into one — what we would today call an anthology, which, incidentally, also often doesn’t name an author on the front cover (though, today, there is usually an editor listed).
I’m sure it was from you, years ago, that I learned the four canonical Gospels were written and circulated anonymously, and how they came to be named. But since then, I’ve never thought there was anything “strange” about anonymity. Authors wrote works meant to be read aloud (probably by the authors) to their congregations. Visitors asked for and were given copies, for sharing with their communities. The authors’ names wouldn’t have meant anything to those other communities, so no one bothered to include them.
Right! See today’s post.
Fundamentalist do argue, as you well know, that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the actual authors of the Gospels. Is their position new, or is the scholarly position that the real names of the authors are unknown a newer concept?
That’s been teh standard view since the end of the second century.
A further thought: The authors of “Gospels” falsely attributed to Peter, Mary Magdalene, et al. undoubtedly hoped to *sell* copies of these works that had somehow “come into their possession.”
I’m not aware of any evidence that Christian gospels (or Christian books of any kind) were ever sold in the first centuries of Christianity.
Do you think the gospels the gospels were written by one person each or could they be more of a collective work? If they were written by one person presumably the first readers knew who the author was. It is interesting that they apparently did not see fit to include an attribution when they distributed the text.
My sense is that one person actually put pen to papyrus — they aren’t committee compositions. But *behind* them stand communities of believers who have been telling many of these stories for years.
Are many of the works in the Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea Scrolls (apart from the Hebrew Bible) also anonymous? If so, might the reasons be similar to those for anonymity of the anonymous works of the NT?
Yes indeed, they are. And it’s a great question — I’m not sure we know!
Was it common in the Greco-Roman world in the Patristic period to circulate documents (e.g. civil & political documents, religious documents but not purported to be sacred texts) without identifying the author?
Most essays and other such writings were signed by their authors.
In relation to the Afterlife, in John 3:13 Jesus says,
“No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.”
If that is the case does that indicate that he thought that Moses and Elijah etc were being held in Sheol (rather than heaven) from where they came to join him on the Mount of Transfiguration?
Good question. The problem is that John doesn’t narrate (or know about?) the Transfiguration.
Dr. Ehrman, thank you for all you do! I appreciate your hard work and dedication for a great purpose. You are truly righteous and I know the footprints of your heart and mind are worthy. I feel the same in my heart about Dr, Pagels as well.
Dr ehrman
When mark says that the women fled the tomb, then was that an action to seek safety in flight?
when it says
“To none NOTHING they spoke…”
is this ADDITIONAL piece of information , so not only did they flee but they kept silent too?
apologists will say that they kept silent while they were fleeing, but they no longer were silent until they reached decsiples
what are your thoughts on this?
Mark is pretty emphatic that they didn’t say anything to anyone. If he wanted to say, “for a day or so,” he would have said it.
Then how does Mark know about it?
Anybody reading the gospel at that time–even if he or she had no previous knowledge of the gospel story–would know this couldn’t be true.
It’s a very perverse way to end a story.
That’s one of the delicious ironies of his very subtle account!
Jesus could be perverse as well, there is little reason to doubt.
Truth is never simple, or all of a piece.
We come at it by obscure and winding pathways.
one can speculate that the secret of the women got leaked out ,the women really didnt tell and news never reached the 11 because they already ran away to galilee,
or, mark knows stuff like he knows the minds of the pharisees who question in their hearts.
mark doesnt need eyewitnesses to know what is going on in places where no eyewitness is.
if mark can have stories where no eyewitness was present, why didnt he mention jesus existing the tomb ?
He had literary reasons for shaping his Gospel the way he did.
Dr. Ehrman, is there some type of ancient precedent or pattern for texts with titles like the gospels’ (whether it be authors naming themselves in the third person in the title, or non-authors placing the name of the author in the title)? In other words, are the gospels and other Christian literature our only ancient examples of authors’ names being placed in text titles?
Additionally, is there any other ancient literature which has a purely anonymous body of text with only a title stating the author?
I don’t know of other instances where a title gives the author’s name. The Gospel titles are very odd, since the earliest ones are simply “According to Matthew,” “According to Mark” etc. No one, of course, would give their own book that title. The title is telling readers *whose* account this originally was (in the scribe’s/editor’s opinion)
Ya, I think if there was at least one other example of an author placing a title like this with his/her seemingly anonymous text body the apologists would have a better case when vying for eye-witness authorship. Since we have no other example it seems logical to think as you do, especially when considering the external evidence. Thanks, Dr. Ehrman.
Dear dr. Ehrman,
Hope u and your family are doing well! I have a simple question: If one wants to know more about the issue of the authorship of the Gospels, where should he go? Is there a book or books you would recommend? For example, I would really like to know in detail why the majority of scholars don’t think that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, or why majority of scholars reject the notion that disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
Hope u can help me.
Kind regards from Croatia!
P.S.
For example, W. Kummel concludes in his “Einleitung in das Neue Testament”: “the great majority of scholars believe therefore the drafting of Mark by John Mark is certain” (page 69). The book was published back in 1973 so I’m a little bit confused. Is he just wrong about the majority of scholars or is this the OLD consensus that changed in the last 30-40 years?
I suppose in Germany in teh 1960s that was a majority view, but it ain’t today (except among theologically conservative scholars who want to show the apostolic origin of the book)
I talk abouit it in my books Forged and Jesus Before the Gospels; you might start there.