Every existing document has the title.
This is the Q hypothesis, and although it is the majority view, it is not required to be held by anyone.
Re you so biased against the Catholic Church that you refuse to accept any point of Tradition, even to the point of stating with absolute certainty a point that is not absolutely known outside of Tradition?
What point of tradition do you believe that I refuse to accept? I am arguing against the gospels being anonymous at one time. That agrees with Catholic tradition.
So they have titles? Okay…RD, open up Matthew and the book of Hebrews (we have the same NT) - and quote the passage that says that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew or that Paul wrote Hebrews?
Are you saying the Church doesn’t have a postion on this?
There is no evidence that the gospels as a genre existed without their titles. That is my point. Matthew, within the text, does not identify the author. However, that is not the issue. The gospels as a genre do not do that within the text. However, seperating the title from the text has no basis in the physical evidence of existing documents from anytime.
That is the issue of this thread.
Or
JoeThat is the issue of this thread.
All I am claiming is that the gospels, as well as the book of Hebrews, are anonymous as far as they do not say something like:
Or
Clearly Paul, in the preceding letters identifies himself as the author and tradition of the CC is not necessary, but Paul does not claim authorship regarding Hebrews nor does Matthew or John son of Zebedee claim authorship of the gospel of Matthew and John. The CC affixed those names to those books latter. That’s all; no biggie…Even if the CC affixed those names to those books in the first century, it is still a tradition of the CC, which is nowhere found in those books. I don’t know how else to make my point.
Because they are not in there today. I open to page 1 in the book of Hebrews and nowhere does this book tell me who the author is!!! Are you referring to the table of contents regarding Hebrews and John etc…?
Would the earliest copy of the Bible help?
This is supposition – and conflicts with what we know from Eusebius, who quoted from Clement
s books. From [The Authors of the Gospels](http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels.pdf): "So greatly then did the brightness of true religion light up the minds of Peters hearers that they were not satisfied to have a once-for-all hearing nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with appeals of every kind begged Mark, the follower of Peter, whose gospel we have, to leave them too a memorial in writing of the teaching given them by word of mouth. Nor did they cease until they had persuaded the man, and in this way became the cause of the written gospel according to Mark. And it is said that the Apostle, when the fact became known to him through the revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with the eagerness of the men and approved [or ratified] the writing for use in the churches. Clement relates the anecdote in the sixth book of: `The Outlines` [Hypotyposes], and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, also bears witness to it and to Peter mentioning Mark in his earlier letter. Indeed they say that he composed it at Rome itself, and that he indicates this when referring figuratively to the city as Babylon in these words: `The elect [the church] that is in Babylon greets you and so does my son Mark` ((EH 2. 15, 1-2 and RO 166)).
`And again in the same books, Clement states a tradition of the **very earliest presbyters** about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. **He used to say that the first written** of the gospels **were those having the genealogies**. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. **While Peter was publicly preaching** the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, **the audience**, which was numerous, **begged Mark**, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, **to write down the things he had said**.
And he did so, handing over the Gospel to those who had asked for it. And when Peter got to know about it, he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or to promote it … But John, last of all, being conscious that the exterior facts had been set forth in the [other] Gospels, after he had been urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel`. ((EH 6:14, 5-7 and RO 166r)).
In this last paragraph above, Clement of Alexandria clearly sets down which two gospels were the first to be written - Matthew and Luke. He is the only early historian to specifically write concerning the chronology of the Gospels. He said he was quoting the very earliest presbyters [note in the plural]. Other writers did not dispute his evidence.No, I cannot read Koine Greek or modern day Greek.
OK…
Like the Codex Vaticanus; I agree. Those “titles” in the table of contents of the Codex Vaticanus regarding Matthew Mark Luke and John were affixed to the 4 gospels in the Codex Vaticanus, by the CC leaders as opposed to Matthew the tax collector or Mark, a disciple of Peter, or Luke, a disciple of Paul or the apostle John, son of Zebedee.
Nowhere is this the case in the 4 gospels. You tell me that you are not referring to the “titles” of the authors in the table of contents, and you admit that the gospels themselves, as isolated writings, are anonymous, yet you say:
With which I agree, and then you say:
Which betrays your belief that they were anonymous. I can’t follow you at all…
You do not have to be able to read Greek to still find the titles above them. It can be ascertained by looking at them.
I am not referring to a table of contents. I am referring to the title right above the text. What are you talking about a table of contents? Each gospel, as you or anyone can see with or without knowledge of Greek, has their title directly above them. If you know of copies of the gospels without them, they would have been provided. They do not exist. That is why when someone claims the gospels were anonymous, they cannot prove that. No copies exist without the titles above them and no historian claims the gospels were anonymous from the first 400 years. The earliest person who mentioned them by name Papias, certainly knew the author. No one from 70 AD to 130 AD mentions them and says they are “anonymous”. So your position has no proof. It argues from presuppositions based upon internal source criticism evidence as I stated earlier.
The title precludes them from being anonymous. Every existing complete copy of a gospel has them.
I am not referring to a table of contents. A table of contents is found in the front of the book. The earliest codex do not have a table of contents. The gospels do not exist without their titles. All you have to do is look at any codex or any full copy of a gospel from any source prior to ascertain this. A title is distinct from the table of contents. Titles are included in the table of contents but only where there exists a table of contents. The earliest copies of the Bible do not include table of contents. Ancient copies of books did often include a table of contents but these did not.