Series: Who Wrote the Gospels?, Pt. 4 - The Theory of the Anonymous Gospels, Problem #3 - Why Attribute Mark and Luke to Non-Eyewitnesses?
In Pt. 2, we looked at the first reason to doubt this theory - no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John have ever been found.
In Pt. 3, we will considered the second reason New Testament scholar Brant Pitre believes the theory of the anonymous gospels is "almost completely baseless" - the anonymous scenario is incredible.
In this final post of the series, we will look at the third reason Dr. Pitre rejects the theory of the anonymous gospels.
Pitre writes:
"The third major problem with the theory of the anonymous Gospels has to do with the claim that the false attributions were added a century later to give the Gospels 'much needed authority.' If this were true, then why are two of the four Gospels attributed to non-eyewitnesses? Why, of all people, would ancient scribes pick Mark and Luke, who...never even knew Jesus?
Once again, put yourself in the place of the ancient scribes who supposedly knowingly added the false titles to the Gospels. If you wanted to give authority to your anonymous book, would you pick Luke, who was neither an eyewitness himself nor a follower of an eyewitness, but a companion of Paul, who never met Jesus during his earthly life? And if you wanted to give authority to your anonymous life of Jesus, would you pick Mark, who was not himself a disciple of Jesus? If authority is what you were after, why not attribute your anonymous Gospel directly to Peter, the chief of the apostles? Or to Andrew, his brother? For that matter, why not go straight to the top and attribute your Gospel to Jesus himself?...such attributions to the apostles and other eyewitnesses is exactly what we find when we look at the so-called 'lost gospels' - also known as the apocryphal gospels (from Greek word apocryphon, meaning 'hidden book'). Virtually all scholars agree that the apocryphal gospels-such as the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Judas- are forgeries that were falsely attributed to disciples of Jesus long after the apostles were all dead. Note that none of the later aprocryphal gospels are attributed to non-eyewitnesses like Mark and Luke. The later false gospels are attributed to people with firsthand access to Jesus; people like Peter, or the apostle Thomas or Mary Magdalene, or Judas, or even Jesus himself. They are never attributed to mere followers or companions of the apostles. Why? Because it is the authors of the apocryphal gospels who wanted to give much-needed authority to their writings by falsely ascribing them to people with the closest possible connections to Jesus."1
In conclusion, I think we can confidently conclude that the theory of the anonymous gospels is false for the following 3 reasons:
1. No anonymous copies exist
2. The theory is illogical and fails the basic criteria of historical plausibility.
3. The 2 gospels attributed to people who did not directly know Jesus (Mark and Luke) do not fit with the idea that the names of the Gospel authors were added to give the appearance of authority.
To learn more about why we can be confident that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels that bear their name, I encourage readers to get Dr. Pitre excellent book.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, p. 22-23.
Related Posts
Series: Who Wrote the Gospels?, Pt. 1 - The Theory of the Anonymous Gospels
Series: Who Wrote the Gospels?, Pt. 2 - The Theory of the Anonymous Gospels, Problem #1 - No Anonymous Manuscripts Exist
Series: Who Wrote the Gospels, Pt. 3 - The Theory of the Anonymous Gospels, Problem #2 - The Anonymous Scenario is Incredible
Comments