Illiterate men.

[Drich]

True. I shouldn't have extrapolated.

Well, if the Gospel of Matthew sits on shaky foundations

Not shaky, We just do not know exactly who wrote the account, nor do we have a clear time frame in which it was written. We assume Matthew because the possibilities of who could have written this account in the format in which it was written are few and far between, not to mention Matthew (aside from Judas) was the only other apostle with the means to record an account of the life of Jesus himself.
All of that aside we have three collaberating accounts that paint the same picture.

then doesn't that start to paint a new picture about the credibility of the other witnesses?

How so?

Let's look at the intentions that Luke had when he wrote his account:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainly concerning the things you have been taught.

So in 1:1 he acknowledges that he was familiar with previous texts describing the events i.e. Mark. Now, this is what wikipedia says about this introduction:

Luke was not speaking to the account of Mark. Luke was telling theolopus that his work his responsiblity likened him to a phrophet of old. (Like those from the beginning who recorded the word of God.) Because at the time Luke wrote this letter there were no other accounts of the gospel. We know Luke's account was written well before John Mark's (the Apstole Peter's protege.) Because, As I said Mark's work was not penned down till after the death of Peter.(70 AD) It wasn't till Peter's death, that the rest began to accept the second comming of Christ was not to the time frame they thought it to be. So they needed to ensure the word was avaible for the subsequent generations.

Luke's work was written much earlier for a very different reason. We know this because Luke was mentioned in Collossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon which were all written in the life time of Peter.( died around 70 AD) and Paul(who was acredited to writting those three books died in 67 AD)

Remeber Luke's Letters (The book of Luke and the Book of Acts) were written to his, at the time, Master (Theopolus.) Luke's efforts in the other three books written by Paul were after Luke had been released from the service of Theolopus, and was now acting as an understudy to Paul himself. (Well before 67 AD)

So the book/The letters of Luke were written first to Theolopus for his personal/family usage. However They were not considered to be apart of the conical gospels till late 2nd century (Some say 4th century) But either way the actual text of Luke was recorded before the work of Mark was even penned.

The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1-4)

Again the best sources being Peter and Paul.. The writer of that wiki page didn't seem to take into account all of the other words and deeds luke was responsible for, as recorded in the bible.

Which makes sense with the fact he had access to the Gospel of Mark. Conclusion? The author couldn't have been the Apostle Luke as he didn't witness anything but merely relayed on the information he gathered. So once again it is Church tradition that holds together the ideal possibility that we are reading what the Apostles wrote. Not very convincing..

If only 2 out of the 10 deciples could read and write and one committed suicide then which apstoles do you suppose would write the gospel accounts? Matthew is the only one known to have been in a position where he needed to be literate, so we attribute the one gospel who maticulessly records and compares the Jewish text aganst what he saw (just as a tax collector would) To Matthew.

John's text is said to have been a collaberation between himself and a scribe.

JohnMark's was the account of Peter, and Luke was an outsider/gentile's look at the whole thing.