This post is the first in a series addressing the question, "Who Wrote the Gospels?" As I have been reading through Brant Pitre's excellent book The Case for Jesus - The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, I thought his response to the claim that the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are written by anonymous authors would be helpful.
The purpose of this first post in the series is to answer the question, "What is the theory of the anonymous gospels?" Pitre explains:
"According to this theory, the traditional Christian ideas about who wrote the Gospels are not in fact true. Instead, scholars began to propose that the four Gospels were originally anonymous. In particular, this theory was formulated in the early twentieth century by scholars known as 'form critics,' who believed that the Gospels were not biography but folklore."1
According to Pitre, there are 4 four basic claims made by proponents of the theory of the anonymous gospels:
"First, according to the this theory, all four Gospels were originally published without any titles or headings identifying the authors. This means no 'Gospel according to Matthew,' no 'Gospel according to Mark,' no "Gospel according to Luke,' and no 'Gospel according to John.' Not for any one of the four. Just blanks. According to this theory, in contrast to many other ancient biographies published under the name of an actual author, the original authors of the Gospels deliberately chose to keep their identities hidden.
Second, all four Gospels supposedly circulated without any titles for almost a century before anyone attributed them to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Recall that in the ancient world, all books were handmade copies known as manuscripts. Thus, according to this hypothesis, every time one of the Gospels was hand-copied for decade after decade, no one added any titles.
Third, it was only much later - some time after the disciples of Jesus were dead and buried - that the titles were finally added to the manuscripts. According to the theory, the reason the titles were added was to give the four Gospels 'much needed authority.' In other words, the inclusion of titles was a deliberate attempt to deceive readers into falsely believing that the Gospels were written by apostles and disciples. As Bart Ehrman writes, elsewhere, the titles of the four Gospels are a 'not at all innocent form of ancient false attribution or forgery - a practice widely condemned by both pagans and Christians.
Fourth and finally, and perhaps most significant of all, according to this theory, because the Gospels were orginally anonymous, it is reasonable to conclude the none of them was actually written by an eyewitness. For example, for Ehrman, the four Gospels are the last links in a long chain of writings by anonymous storytellers who not themselves eyewitnesses to Jesus and who may never have even met an eyewitness."2
Pitre summarizes:
"This, in a nutshell, is the theory of the anonymous Gospels. The theory is remarkably widespread among scholars and non-scholars alike. It is especially emphasized by those who wish to cast doubts on the historical reliability of the portrait of Jesus in the four Gospels. The only problem is that the theory is almost completely baseless."3
A bold claim, no? As this series continues, we will consider 3 reasons why Pitre believes this theory fails.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, p. 13.
2. Ibid., p. 14-15.
3. Ibid.
Related Posts
Article: Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy Paul Jones
Do the Gospels Contain Legendary Embellishments?
Is the Gospel of Thomas as Reliable as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Comments