I have Pitreās work. I didnāt finish it yet. He sent me spiraling when I read his argument about the gospel titles. This is part of a larger research project I am engaged in on Gospel authorship:
There are No Anonymous Copies of the Gospels
Brant Pitre in The Case for Jesus (2016) wrote, āThe first and biggest problem for the theory of the anonymous Gospels is this: no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have ever been found . ā (pg 15) Appealing to some of Simon Gathercoleās research, he proclaims manuscripts are unanimous when it comes to assigning traditional authorship.
He cites 27 examples of manuscript evidence going from the second through fifth century that do not support anonymous composition and lists them in tabular form. I am only going to look at his 2nd century references because it seems clear to me that by the end of the second century (Muratorian Fragment(2nd or 4th century?), Tatianās Diatessaron, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria) the four fold gospel was becoming established in Orthodox circles. In the third century on, we might expect later copies to have these titles. Pitreās list of 27 examples is thus reduced to 5 potential candidates spanning Papyrus 4, 62, 66 and 75 (which has titles for both Luke and John). The first of these, papyrus 4, actually references the Gospel of Luke but a small flyleaf containing just the title of Matthewās Gospel is sometime included in this designation.[1] Now it should be noted that dating these manuscripts is not as precise as the table in Pitreās work would lead us to believe. He is correct in that many scholars would place some of these in the second century but he conveniently leaves out the late designation that should precede second century for papyrus 4 and 62. In addition, some experts will tell you papyrus 4 could range anywhere from the 2nd to the 4th century. He also dates papyrus 62 to the second century when many paleographically date it to the 3rd or even the 4th century. Papyrus 66 attests to the title of the Gospel of John which he dates late second century. Once again, some scholars place it in the mid second century and others like Brent Nongbri[2] place it in the fourth century. It seems Pitre accepts all the earlier dates but his work which seems to rely at parts on Gathercoleās, doesnāt match the dates proposed by Gathercole. The table below shows the dates proposed by Pitre and Gathercole for the four manuscripts:
Manuscript
| Papyrus |
Pitreās Date |
Gathercoleās Dating |
| B4 |
2nd century |
Late 2nd / Early 3rd |
| B62 |
2nd century |
4th century |
| B66 |
Late 2nd century |
Late 2nd/ Early 3rd |
| B75 |
2nd-3rd Century |
Early 3rd |
As far as early manuscripts containing the titles, we have two manuscript references to Matthew (4 and 62), two references to John (66 and 75) and one to Luke (66). None of these can actually be securely dated to the second century. It may be the case that all of them come from the early third century and on. Several of them, of course, may come from the second century. These works are dated paleographically. What that means is experts look at the handwriting and compare it to other ancient works and they attempt to determine when it was written. As you can guess, this process requires some subjectivity and is open to very different interpretations. Paleographic dating is simply not that precise and it cannot hold up the central claim Pitre is making based off of it. While he is correct in that we certainly find the titles affixed to the gospels in countless manuscripts in different languages, none of this is marvelously impressive given the late date of all them and how scarce representation is the first 120 years of their existence. There is little doubt that in the third-century the modern day ascriptions given to the Gospels became widely accepted by the Church. Irenaeus shows us knowledge of a four-fold Gospel ca. 180 CE. There were certainly dissenters in other groups who utilized different gospels and had different ideologies but history is very clear on which side was the majority view and which side won. The manuscript record, which is incomplete and rather late for our purposes here, simply attests to this. Lacking significant early manuscript evidence, Pitre is attempting to build a bridge too far.
For perspective against Pitreās claim, in regards only to Mark, Joel Marcus writes, āIf Mark does not identify himself, why is the name āMarkā commonly attached to his Gospel? It appears in most extant manuscripts as part of an appended title , either in the short form Kata Markon (āAccording to Markā) or in the long form Euangelion kata Markon (āGood News according to Markā). This title, however, is sometimes located at the beginning of the manuscript, sometimes at its end, sometimes at both the beginning and end, sometimes somewhere along the side. This variation suggests that the identification of Mark as the author is not original but was added independently by different later scribes. Harnack and Zahn influentially argued that the Gospel titles did not arise until the second century C.E., when the churches began to have collections of all four Gospels and needed to distinguish one from the other. Hengel (Mark, 64-68) has attempted to push this date back into the late first century, when churches began to have not four but only two Gospels, but he is not able to produce a convincing argument that the Gospel titles were an original part of the text. As late as the fourth century, moreover, some copies of Mark appear to have circulate anonymously (see C. Black, Mark 151).ā [3]
Consulting C. Clifton Blackās work referenced by Marcus, we come across a reference to a work known as ā The Dialogue on the Orthodox Faith ā in the fourth century. In this account we see a dispute between the orthodox Adamantius and the heretical Megethius, a disciple of Marcion, with Eutropius as the debateās adjudicator. The two end up sparring over the authorship and apostleship of Mark and Luke. Oddly enough, Adamantius suggests the second Gospel was written by Mark, but bypasses Peter altogether. He argues that Mark (and Luke) were one of the 72 dispatched by Jesus. This is not the important part. What is important to our concerns is the dialogue shows the same presuppositions by the proponents of orthodoxy as well as heresy:
- the Gospels should have been written by apostles and 2) that the text itself should bear a record of these authors in some form. The Marcionite is quick to point out that Luke and Mark are nowhere mentioned in their Gospels but Adamantius disagrees. Now the orthodox champion Adamantius, never once appeals to the title of the Gospel of Mark. Instead, he appeals to Luke 10:1 and argues that Mark must have been one of the 72 dispatched by Jesus. This baffling argument from silence is practically nonsensical. Conservatives today want to appeal to the unanimous testimony of the earth church and the alleged unanimous manuscript traditions including Gospel titles. Unfortunately, Adamantius does not seem to be in this position imagined by modern exegetes. C. Clifton Black writes, āHowever fallacious the logic, apparently the parties in the debate find the evidence of Luke 10:1 more relevant than an appeal to the Second Gospelās traditional attribution, āAccording to Mark.ā Indeed, that title or superscript is neglected altogether: as Megethius asserts (and Adamantius concedes), āHave the Gospel read and youāll find that these namesā ā Mark and Luke āāare not written in it.ā[4]
The dialogue is worth reading in full and I have included a translated portion from Robert A. Pretty on the next page. Black, in a footnote, writes that this account does not necessarily contradict Hengelās attempt to demonstrate an early attachment of the Gospel titles, ābut it does cast a shadow of doubt on the probative weight, accorded to such titles, at least by some Christians during the patristic era.ā Marcus is correct in that Hengel has not shown the Gospel titles are part of the originals. He has succeeded in showing that the gospels cannot be viewed as circulating anonymously for the extent some other scholars have otherwise argued. Papias tends to push the attribution to Mark to an early date but this does not suggest or argue the title was similarly early and though Hengel spent many pages putting forth contrary arguments, we simply do not have any early copies of the Gospels and the ones with titles are late. [5]
We must also contend with two other facts that work against one another. We donāt seem to have legitimate alternatives to traditional authorship so the titles were probably rather early. We canāt seriously imagine most later Christians just using any anonymous Gospel. They either had an idea of who wrote, the community it came from or it was viewed already in their social circle as authoritative. There were many Gospels available around the middle of the second century onwards. After Marcion and towards the end of the second century and into the third, anyone using our Gospels would most likely have considered them authoritative over and against many other Gospels. There was a large pool to choose from. We know what Gospels won and the surviving manuscript record, as sparse as it is early on, is biased. Those with a copy of a particular Gospel in the early church probably had it because they thought it was authoritative. Any Christians who rejected a particular Gospel may not have used it. We should not imagine one, let alone multiple authors in different regions simultaneously inventing the same unlikely author and title for a text like Mark. That is silly. What this means is the titles became fixed early enough to dominate our biased manuscript tradition but we may or may not have any titles to any of our Gospels from the second century. There are only a handful of potential cases. Gospel titles in the third and fourth centuries are hardly probative of what the Gospels looked like in the second half of the first century. We must be careful not to over-estimate or underestimate the evidence here. While the titles do pop up relatively early and later on are wide-spread, we have no solid textual evidence they were in the autographs or belonged to the very first and earliest communities using these works. At best, they show up early in a handful of places late in the second century, if not in the third century. In the third century moving forward, the record becomes populated.
Adamantius on the Authorship of Mark and Luke [6]
MEG . I can prove that the Gospels are spurious.
AD. What proofs have you to offer that this is so?
MEG. I will show from the Gospels themselves that they are spurious.
AD. Will you agree if I show from the Gospels that they are not fabrications?
MEG. I will agree if you prove it. First state the names of the Gospel writers.
AD. The disciples of Christ wrote them: John and Matthew; Mark and Luke.
MEG. Christ did not have Mark and Luke as disciples, so you and your party are convicted of producing spurious writings. Why is it that the disciples whose names are recorded in the Gospel did not write, while men who were not disciples did? Who is Luke? Who is Mark? You are therefore convicted of bringing forward names not recorded in the Scriptures.
EUTR. If Christ had disciples, would He not have committed the work to them rather than to men who were not disciples? Something seems wrong here. The disciples themselves ought rather to have been entrusted with the task.
AD. These men are also disciples of Christ.
MEG. Let the Gospel be read, and you will find that their names are not recorded.
EUTR. Let it be read.
AD. The names of the twelve apostles were read, but not those of the seventy-two as well.
EUTR. How many apostles did Christ have?
AD. He first sent twelve to preach the Gospel, then, after this, seventy-two. So Mark and Luke, who were among the seventy-two, preached the gospel along with the apostle Paul. MEG. It is impossible that these men ever saw Paul.
AD. I will show that the Apostle himself bears witness to Mark and Luke.
MEG. I do not accept your spurious Apostolicon.
AD. Produce your Apostolicon ā even though it is much mutilated ā and I will prove that Mark and Luke worked with Paul.
MEG. Prove it.
AD. I read at the end of Paulās letter to the Colossians: āAristarchus, my fellow-prisoners,ā he says āsends you greetings ; also Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions, that he may come to you; receive him, therefore; and Jesus who is called Justus. These are from the circumcision. They alone are my fellow-workers for the Kingdom of God ā men who have been a comfort to me.ā And following this, āLuke sends you greetings; also Demas.ā I have offered proofs from the Epistle. You see that even the Apostle himself witnessed to them.
EUTR. The proof is clear from these statements.
[1] Gathercole, pg 38 The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, see footnote 20.
[2] Brent Nongbri. āThe Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66),ā Museum Helveticum 71 (2014), 1ā35
[3] Joel Marcus V1 Marcus pg 17.
[4] C. Clifton Black, Mark, pg 151
[5] On Page 64, Hengel criticized Rudolph Pesch for thinking this one line settled the matter, āAll the inscriptioneswriting
[6] Adamantius, Dialogue on the True Faith in God, Robert A. Pretty, Peeters 1997, pp 41-43ā¦ Edited by Garry W. Trompf