>If you want to talk about the resurrection then why don't you just ask?

Yep changing the subject which of course concedes the debate to moi.

I am not interested in discussing the resurrection (I still don't assume burden of proof. Remember? My hoose! My peeps!) but if you think that applies to the Resurrection then you are all but conceding my point since there is no historic evidence (a per yer positivist standards) the four Gospels where anonymous. The logical supposition here is they likely had the titles or some version of it we have today. After all lot of pseudonymous literature including Christian religious literature has titles.

This "consensus" view on the titles of the Four Gospels it seems needs to be challenged. It defies common sense even if there are no gods.

But you believe whatever mindless dogma ya want. Yer a Gnu Atheist after all and not a philosophical Atheist so yeh....

Stick to the topic, Sunny Jim. The gospels are anonymous. Period.
And if you don't like Ferguson's excellent piece then go read another scholar. There are plenty moreproper ones like Ferguson who will explain why the names were added later.
Or you could ''friend'' Ken Ham on Facebook as he seems more your type and fundamentalist intellectual level?
Have fun.
Sorry, Senor Dipshit, bit your level of rank stupidity has a very limited shelf life.
Enjoy playing with yourself. Your done.

His agreement with the consensus has no meaning & he make NO POSITIVE ARGUMENT to justify his trust in this so called "consensus". For argument's sake Craig can and does agree with the same consensus. So what?The issue is the rational and evidentiary justification for this consensus. I submit there is none and nobody here can challenge that it seems. Only avoid it or change the subject.

By yer own positivist standards son ya got no evidence the original Gospels had no titles. None at all and reason and historical evidence favors titles or the miraculous consensus of every Church Father unanimously (i.e. consensus) agreeing Gospel one was written by Matthew & #2 was written by Mark etc etc etc...100 years after the fact.

Not to mention the fact all pseudonymous NT Apocryphal texts have titles even if they are forgeries so why wouldn't the Gospels originally have titles?

You have no answer to this and you likely never will.

Then you didn't read him properly. Have another go.
He agrees with the consensus a n d explains why scholars across all the relevant disciplines acknowledge why the gospels are anonymous and this is what the argument is about. Although, in truth there is no argument, it's a done deal and you' re just making noise in the hope someone pays you some attention.
Give it up Sunny Jim, your wasting your time.

It is not there son. Give it a rest. Ferguson is trying to argue why I should doubt the Gospels. He is not trying to specifically make the case the titles where put on a century after their composition. Indeed his thesis as it stands as pointed out by Craig works better if the titles where in fact on the original documents.

Sorry.

Read Ferguson, he'll tell you.

But Catholicism does teach echoing Aquinas "Reason proceeds faith" and I believe reason and common sense show this popular theory that the titles of the Gospels where put on a full century after they where composed is a bit knackered.

The Fathers unanimously testify as to the authorship of the Four Gospels that by definition is a binding consensus. It is true some Father doubted some Deutero books OT and NT like for example st john chrysostom openly doubted the Book of Revelations authenticity. But when the Church formally settled the Canon it became heresy to question it. It is likely heresy against the ordinary magesterium. But I trust yer research skills David read up on yer own about it.

Cheers.

David as a skeptic . . . .

Skepticism or agnosticism plays no part in my acceptance of the scholarly consensus that the Gospels at first were circulated anonymously. The issue is one of history and textual criticism, not Catholic doctrine. I don't claim to have an exhaustive knowledge of what is and is not Catholic magisterial teaching, but I am willing to bet that you cannot find any authoritative Catholic source that demands belief that the identities of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are known with any degree of certainty.

David as a skeptic you are very intellectually honest and respectable IMHO. I really mean that & even if I give as good as I get I do respect you. But I have read yer post twice and I think for all intensive purposes you have conceded the lion's share of the argument to me IMHO. Yer free to disagree naturally.
But I won't hold back. This claim about century late titling is nonsense.

>If the gospel titles were added beginning in the earlier part of the second century,

Which is what the CE says according to yer citation, Ark's and WCB and it wasn't the late 2nd century....just saying.

> if Pitre's imagined account of confusions in distant Christian locations is correct, the oldest complete manuscripts of the gospels are from the fourth century. That leaves 200 years to sort out any confusion.

So what yer saying is we have no manuscript evidence of an anonymous Gospel? There is nothing. Not even mentions of it among the Church Fathers or Christian writers or even heretical writers? No hard proof this happened? No historical mention of it? Like I said about you before, yer argument boils down to "well it could have happened". This is a remotely possible supposition I will grant(because I am so wonderful. Kind to animals and children etc and not a complete bastard) but given pseudonymous literature in general has titles then I find it very improbable the four Gospels would be composed and not have titles of some kind attached to them. That makes no sense? I just got off the phone with Dr. B and he told me in passing "Well it is natural for people to label and name things so why would they not put titles on the Gospels they composed?" He is not a professional in this area but that is just common sense.

>f I understand Bauckham correctly, he denies the gospels were promulgated anonymously, but he doesn't insist that (for example) Mark titled his own gospel "The Gospel According to Mark."

That sounds trivial. The Silmarillion was the unpublished notes about early middle Earth written by Token but published and edited by his son. The fellow didn't publish it untitled. Clearly if Mark's disciples knew He wrote that Gospel they would have titled it. It seems rather unnatural to write a Gospel if you saw all these miraculous events take place before yer eyes and wait 100 years to title it. OTOH if yer making up a religion oot of yer arse well why wouldn't you title yer made up scripture? Every religion in the world both you and I disagree with does this obviously?

But the Gospels are some weird exception to this rule for "reasons" and I am just suppose to believe this on what? Faith alone in the holy "consensus"? I think not....

>So the question of anonymity and the question of original titles may be be two different questions.

That is what I have been saying and I say it is more probable the Gospels got their titles at their composition or shortly there after. 100 years and then they name them and everybody made up the same names for all four gospels across two or three continents with ZERO variation seems goofy and requires more faith then I already have now in the Trinity. It is nonsense. 200 years not one Father cites the Gospel of Jude which says "In the Beginning was the Word" and another say "No that is Gospel of Simon" and another "Yer crazy that is the Gospel of Andrew" no it's peter. Same book and same text different titles.

Sure....

> That is, Mark (say) may have associated his name with his gospel in some manner other than titling it "The Gospel According to Mark."

That Fergison essay Ark linked too makes a big deal out of the title being "according to Mark" vs merely being "of Mark". I am indifferent to minor naming variations that might have taken place. Tolken's RETURN OF THE KING was suppose to be called THE WAR OF THE RING but his publisher changed it.

So I think this not titling the Gospel's for 100 years is just plain silly. Even if there are no gods and clearly the scholars need to return to the drawing board.

I have watched the 12-minute video featuring Pitre from which I believe the above quote is taken. It is nonsense. If the gospel titles were added beginning in the earlier part of the second century, even if Pitre's imagined account of confusions in distant Christian locations is correct, the oldest complete manuscripts of the gospels are from the fourth century. That leaves 200 years to sort out any confusion.

If I understand Bauckham correctly, he denies the gospels were promulgated anonymously, but he doesn't insist that (for example) Mark titled his own gospel "The Gospel According to Mark." He presents arguments for that, but he also discusses ways in which the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John may have been associated with their respective gospels (notations on scrolls or book spines or the like). So the question of anonymity and the question of original titles may be be two different questions. That is, Mark (say) may have associated his name with his gospel in some manner other than titling it "The Gospel According to Mark."

ETA the NAB commentary on the authorship of Mark:

Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36–39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) and with Peter (1 Pt 5:13). Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter’s “interpreter,” a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources—miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion—so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark’s own day.

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mk 7:3–4, 11). The book aimed to equip such Christians to stand faithful in the face of persecution (Mk 13:9–13), while going on with the proclamation of the gospel begun in Galilee (Mk 13:10; 14:9). Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.