Why the Gospels are anonymous & pseudepigraphical

 

The Gospels Are Intrinsically Anonymous:

One of the most foundational arguments is that none of the Gospels names its author within the text itself.

This article will begin (§1) with a brief review of scholarship on the subject over the past half-century, both in specialized studies and more broadly. From this it can be clearly seen that the great majority of scholars, including leading figures in current Gospels research such as Michael Wolter and Francis Watson, hold to a view of the Gospels as anonymous. - Simon Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels, page 3

One of the most important articles to spark off interest in the subject is that of Kurt Aland, in an essay covering both anonymity and pseudonymity. Aland takes it as read that these two topics need to be considered together (p. 40). He includes in the category of the ‘anonymous writings’ of the New Testament Hebrews, 1 John and the Gospels (p. 41): ‘In my opinion it is be yond doubt that all the gospels were published anonymously. Our present opinion about their authors dates from information which derives from the time of Papias or later’ (p. 42). - Simon Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels, Page 2-3

Freed rightly assesses the majority view, indeed near-consensus, among scholars: ‘Most NT scholars agree that the gospels are anonymous and that the present titles probably were not added until sometime in the second century.’ - Simon Gathercole, The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels, Page 8



The Synoptic Problem: Matthew and Luke Depend on Mark:

The vast majority of scholars accept the priority of Mark — that Mark was written first, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a written source. This creates a major problem for traditional authorship claims. If Matthew was an eyewitness apostle of Jesus, why would he rely so heavily on the Gospel of Mark, who was not an eyewitness?

However, the majority of critical scholars are agreed that the careful study of the discrepancies between Mark itself, and those sections of Matthew and Luke which are closest to Mark, leads to the conclusion that St Matthew and St Luke worked directly from the written text of that gospel. Even Abbot Butler, the most thoroughgoing of the protagonists of the priority of Matthew, does not in fact deny that Matthew and Luke frequently offer what appears to be an 'improved' version of Mark. - R. T. Simpson, The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark, Page 273



Problems with the Papias Tradition:

The earliest external testimony for Gospel authorship comes from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (early 2nd century), who claimed that Mark was Peter's interpreter and that Matthew compiled the "oracles" (λογια) in Hebrew. However, scholars have identified several problems with relying on this tradition. 

An issue that arises immediately from the words of Papias is whether or not he was referring to the canonical Gospel of Matthew or to another document composed by the disciple Matthew. There are two points of interest in this regard. First, unlike Irenaeus, who used the word "Gospel" (εὐαγγελίον), Papias mentioned the oracles or the sayings (τὰ λόγια) that Matthew compiled. This raises the possibility that Papias was not alluding to the Gospel of Matthew at all but was in fact referring to a different text. If that was the case, then Irenaeus mistakenly assumed that Papias was alluding to the Gospel, and the later church simply and uncritically followed his lead.

        In favour of the possibility that Papias had another text in mind is the fact that no contemporary Christian document describes any of the Gospels as τὰ λόγια. Rather, when the expression is used in these texts, it refers either to the words of God (Heb 5:12; 1 Pt 4:11; 1 Clement 13:4; 19:1; 53:1; 2 Clement 13:3; cf 1 Clement 62:3) or to prophetic oracles from the Old Testament (Ac 7:38; Rm 3:2) (Manson 1949:17-18). The closest parallel to the purported Papian usage is found in the epistle of Polycarp (7:1) where τὰ λόγια is used in relation to Jesus. This passage mentions the sayings of the Lord (τὰ λόγια τοῦ κυρίου), but there is no suggestion that any of the Gospels is intended. Therefore, any contention that Papias did use τὰ λόγια as a synonym for εὐαγγελίον must concede that his usage was unique in early Christian literature (France 1989:58).

        The second issue concerns the testimony that Matthew compiled his Gospel in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, which was then later translated by others as best they could. This too seems not to apply to the canonical Gospel. Matthew shows no signs of having been translated from a Semitic original. On the contrary, it is widely accepted that the evangelist used the Greek Gospel of Mark and a Greek recension of Q as the basis for his own account of Jesus' life and teaching (France 1989:62-64; Nolland 2005:3). R T France offers the explanation that the Patristic tradition confused the Greek Gospel of Matthew with certain Semitic Gospels that were also associated with Matthew the disciple; in this way it was assumed that Greek Matthew was a translation from a Semitic original (France 1989:64-66). The problem with this explanation is whether such confusion could have arisen as early as the time of Papias in the first decade of the second century. - David C Sim, The Gospel of Matthew, John the elder and the Papias tradition: A response to R H Gundry, Page 287-288

If Papias was not talking about our Matthew, was he talking about our Mark? As Papias’s quotation about Mark that I cited yesterday indicates, he considered “his” Mark to be problematic because of its disorderly arrangement: that’s why he says that the preaching of Peter was not given “in order.” But that somewhat negative remark in itself is odd, because he doesn’t make the same comment about Matthew, even though the narrative outline of our Matthew is pretty much the same as our Mark – with additional materials added in.

Apart from that, Papias indicates that Mark’s Gospel gives an exhaustive account of everything Peter preached and that it gives it without changing a thing. The reality is that there is no way that anyone could think that the Gospel of Mark in our Bibles today gives a full account of Peter’s knowledge of Jesus. Our Gospel of Mark takes about two hours to read. Are we to think that after spending months (years?) with Jesus, Peter had no more than two hours’ worth of memories?

Of course it may be that Papias is exaggerating for effect. But even so, since he does not appear to be referring to the book we call Matthew, why should we think that he is referring to the book we call Mark? And that, therefore (as Papias indicates) Mark’s Gospel is actually a transcription of Peter’s version of what Jesus said and did? - Bart Ehrman Blog, March 4 2023



The Dating Problem - Too Late for Eyewitnesses:

Most critical scholars date the Gospels well after the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Mark is generally dated to around 65-70 CE, Matthew and Luke to 80-90 CE, and John to 90-100 CE or even later.



The Gospel of John as a Pseudepigraphon:

1. The "Beloved Disciple" is presented as Jesus's most intimate follower, yet he is "unknown from the Synoptics" and is "unattested in other early sources." Dulk points out that "every Synoptic parallel that could corroborate his presence at a given moment in Jesus's life does not"

The text consolidates this eyewitness cast as it gradually identifies its narrator with a particular in-text figure: an enigmatic, male ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’. This disciple, unknown from the Synoptics, is depicted as an intimate companion of Jesus through the climactic, final events of his life (Litwa 2018: 345). - Hugo Méndez, Did the Johannine Community Exist?, Page 361

Every Synoptic parallel that could corroborate his presence at a given moment in Jesus’ life does not – not the Synoptic crucifixion scenes (cf. Mk 15.40-41; Mt. 27.55-56; Jn 19.26-27) nor Luke’s description of Peter’s visit to the tomb (Lk. 24.12; cf. Jn 20.2-10). No less problematically, the eyewitness has a highly artificial texture. ‘Unlike the other Johannine characters … he is the ideal disciple, the paradigm of discipleship’, who ‘has no misunderstandings’ (Culpepper 1983: 121). - Hugo Méndez, Did the Johannine Community Exist?, Page 363

2. the Gospel contains lengthy discourses attributed to Jesus that scholars widely regard as the author's own compositions.

A larger percent age of the text is of suspect historicity, including entire discourses whose style, tone and contents differ so radically from the sayings of Jesus preserved in Paul and the Synoptics as to indicate ‘creativity … on a large scale’ (Lincoln 2007: 187). That these discourses are the author’s fabrications is clear from the fact that ‘when Jesus, the literary character, speaks, he speaks the language of the author and his narrator’ (Culpepper 1983: 40). In certain passages, ‘it is impossible to tell when Jesus … stops speaking … and when or if the narrator speaks’, most notably 3.13-21, 31-36 (Culpepper 1983: 41). In short, Jesus’ voice has been commandeered by the author, who makes him the mouthpiece of an intricate system of ideas foreign to the Synoptics, including the need to be ‘born from above’, ‘abide’ in God, and ‘walk in the light’. - Hugo Méndez, Did the Johannine Community Exist?, Page 362

The Problem of Luke:

1. The prologue (Luke 1:1-4) explicitly distinguishes the author from the eyewitnesses, stating that the author received traditions "from those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses" — placing the author in a second-generation position.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. - Luke 1:1-4


2. If Luke was a companion of Paul, as tradition claims, the significant theological and historical differences between Luke-Acts and Paul's authentic letters become difficult to explain.

see - Historicity of Acts according to Scholars






Source: https://sci-hub.box/10.1093/jts/fly113

Source: https://sci-hub.box/storage/2024/3804/07c91c0e8f6db6c31834b505094e7302/simpson1966.pdf

Source:  https://sci-hub.box/10.4102/hts.v63i1.200

Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-gospel-of-mark-in-papias-our-gospel-of-mark/

Source: https://sci-hub.box/10.1177/0142064x19890490

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201%3A1-4&version=NIV