The Gospel Accounts Are Anonymous

Arguments The Gospels are too Late to be Written by the Traditional Authors As pointed out be Dr. Detering, among others, both gMark and gMatt, in their version of the Synoptic Apocalypse, make reference to the Desolating Sacrilege in a way that calls back to Daniel’s reference. Daniel’s Desolating Sacrilege was when a statue of Zeus was erected. This best fits with a reference to the Bar Kochba Revolt of 130 CE. There are many other parts of the Synoptic Apocalypse of gMark and gMatt which best fits with a 2nd century dating, including the significance of Winter. This makes perfect sense during the Bar Kochba Revolt because the Romans temporarily retreated during this event in Winter, but doesn’t make much sense before this time. Furthermore, what the False Christ is supposed to say according to gMatt is exactly what Bar Kochba said. The False Christ was also supposed to perform deceitful wonders, which Bar Kochba is attributed to have done. Furthermore, Dr. Price has pointed out that in Mark the Transfiguration is offered as a reinterpretation of the promised coming of the kingdom of God, which only makes sense if the first generation of disciples have died. Matthew also presupposes a competing form of Judaism in which the titles Abba and Rabbi are common and where scribes sit on the Seat of Moses in synagogues. There is no evidence of any sect like this existing before 100CE, it seems to have been something from the mid-second century. We can also see the use of Marcion’s Gospel, as pointed out by Dr. Vinzent, and the collected Pauline canon that Marcion had Mark, as pointed out by Dr. Dykstra. This puts Mark and Matthew both after 130CE. As becoming increasingly aware by scholars, like those of the Act-Seminar, both Luke and Acts appear to have used Josephus as a source, putting them at least into the 2nd century. Furthermore, many more scholars, like Dr. Tyson, Vinznet, Klinghardt, and more are coming forward with the idea of Marcion priority over Luke, putting Luke even further into the 2nd century. We also do not see any reference of Luke’s Gospel until 180CE, and the only times it appears as if it was used before this time can easily be said to be the use of either Marcion’s Gospel or the Gospel of James. This makes it most likely that Luke-Acts was written between 160-180CE. Furthermore, John shows knowledge of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim, which requires for it to have been written after 140CE. John also seems to have used the Synoptics (at least Mark and Matthew), also putting it well into the 2nd century. These are all too late to have been written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John, assuming that these are actual historical people to begin with. The Gospels are Internally Anonymous Writings at the time, especially biographies and histories, all included the author’s name in the main body in a way that indicated that said person is the author. This is completely lacking in the Gospels. Even the names of the Gospels, which are thought to be late 2nd century additions, do not claim that Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John actually wrote the Gospels but that they were the source of the knowledge of the Gospels. Other Problems Another issue to consider is that the literacy rate of the time would make it hard to imagine that these people could write the Gospels, and scribes were not as common as many apologists would lead you to believe. The other major problem is the Synoptic Problem and how John relates to the Synoptics. It is quite obvious that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, but why would Matthew, a supposed eye-witness, use Mark as a source? And John also seems to use Mark and Matthew as a source, maybe even Luke yet John is supposed to be an eye-witness as well. Why would an eye-witness use the works of non-eye-witnesses as sources? Rebuttals “ The writers of these documents were not later invented” All the arguments in here only indicate that the name of said people existed before this time and that there were stories about people with said name. This does not indicate that the actual people in question existed. Furthermore, pseudographical writings were very prominent, with at least 6 of the 13 Pauline Epistles being pseudographical writings. This does nothing to indicate that the traditional authorship of these Gospels is accurate. “We have great historical evidence and early documentation of the authorship of the canonical Gospels” We are given no reasons to trust that they actually knew this information. Marcion was really close to the time of Paul compared to these people and even he mistook forged letters as being the real deal. If these Gospels were already being attributed to these figures by the time it reached these figures, then it is entirely possible that they could have mistaken the false information with legit information. Furthermore, I find if funny that the supposed Papias quote was included. To begin with, we have no reason to believe that the quote is authentically from Papias. Furthermore, if it is authentically Papias then it is evidence against the Canonical Gospels having been written by Mark same with the Ireneaus quote and Matthew. The quote claims that Mark wrote in no particular order, but this is not true of the Mark that we have. If Papias is write, than the authentic Mark is a different Mark than the canonical one. Ireneaus claims that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but all internal and external evidence of the Gospel of Matthew we have suggests that it was written in Greek with Greek style. If Ireneus is correct, than the authentic Matthew is different than the canonical one. “We have evidence against the idea that the traditional authorship of the Gospels was made up” Here it is claimed that if they would make up names that they would have chosen apostle’s names, but we can already see a Gospel of Thomas, Peter, etc. in existence. Furthermore, just because it seems intuitive to us to choose those names would not make it necessarily the case back then, afterall, there is a Gospel of Judas, and using Judas’ name when he didn’t write it goes against today’s intuition, but it happened. Sources “The Pre-Nicene New Testament” Dr. Price “Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report” “Marcion and Luke-acts” Dr. Tyson “Mark Canonizer of Paul” Dr. Dykstra “Forged” Dr. Ehrman “Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity” Dr. Vinzent http://tinyurl.com... http://www.preteristarchive.com...