The truth according to Bart D. Ehrman

[popeyespappy]

[quote='John V' pid='366458' dateline='1353954763']
If Mark was actually written by the disciple Mark, I would believe more of the book. Not the supernatural parts, but the historical stuff would be coming from someone who was a first-hand witness. That would be a big improvement, credibility-wise.

First, if manuscripts said "written by Mark" or some such, would you accept it as actually written by Mark? Couldn't Ehrman or anyone else claim it a forgery?

Second, mark is traditionally considered to be second-hand from Peter, although some think Mark was an eyewitness to certain parts but not all of his gospel. Luke says staright out that it's being written as a history rather than a first-person account. Only Matthew and John are traditionally considered first-hand accounts, and Matthew borrows from Mark.

Peter? Traditional?

Traditionally Matthew, Mark and Luke are assumed to be written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Catholic scholars liked Matthew --> Mark --> Luke. Protestant scholars liked Matthew --> Luke --> Mark. Most modern Biblical scholars adhere to the two-source hypothesis with Mark and an unknown Q document serving as the source for Matthew and Luke. The hypothesis where Peter and/or the Gospel of the Hebrews were written earlier then used as sources for the Synoptic Gospels is a mid 20th century invention.

Personally I like the four-source hypothesis where Mark along with Q, L and M sources are used to create Matthew and Luke.