The written records as evidence

[FallentoReason]

I don't think you know what "contemporary" means.
x number of years later isn't contemporary.

Nonsense. If an associate of Michael Jackson wrote a biography of him it'd be a contemporary account.

Ok, clearly we're both talking about different things. What I mean to say is that none of the literature on Jesus was written while he was alive. Call that what you will, but that's all I was pointing out.

I was only referring to the Gospels. It's evident that the story evolved. Have a look at John the Baptist and Jesus.

Well then you're admitting that you're making assumptions about which order they were actually written in. If Luke and Matthew are truely unaware of each other's gospel then they could have been written in either order, and John could have been written any time!

I think it's a safe assumption to say the order is Mark -> Matthew/Luke -> John. Mark is the crudest of them all while John seems to be the most polished.

Why would John not mentioning something throw a spanner in the works? That's an assumption on your behalf. Matthew is the only one that mentions zombie saints after Jesus' crucifixion, with none of the other gospel authors batting an eye about it. Clearly they wrote whatever they felt needed writing about. Albeit, it's a very suss exclusion of information, but I digress.

I'm not sure why you're drifting so far off the point of this thread? We're talking about evidence, not nitpicking on small details which I don't expect you to accept. For instance, all the gospels - including John - tell us the name of the person who retrieved Jesus' body and then had it placed in his own tomb, that person being Joseph of Arimathea. That is one such example of clear consistency.

My apologies. I do have to admit I'm not sure where we're heading in our discussion. I'm just answering you a sentence for a sentence.

Ok, that's an example of consistency. *shrugs* it would be rather silly of me to assert that the Gospels have 0% consistency. I'm not going to that extreme.

With so much speculation, I guess we'll never know for sure.

But you're wrong - we do know some things for sure. For instance, we know it's written after Peter's death, and we know that it's written by the Apostle John.

If you say it could be dated anywhere between 50AD and 90AD, then I'd say there's a lot of goddamn speculation going on!

Sorry, I should've clarified; Matthew and Luke knew about Mark ergo Markan Priority. On a side note, it's rather odd how "Matthew" - a supposed witness - needs to rely on "Mark" who wasn't a witness for his account. Surely "Matthew's" experience is more trustworthy than a second-hand account?

Not really, it is true that you wouldn't instinctively think that an Apostle would use a written source by somebody else as their basis, however that argument is by no means a rock-solid argument for or against the authorship of the gospel. But, alas, it's not so important that we know who the author of "Matthew" is, as the author himself never claims to be Matthew so the point is relatively moot.

I think it's a damn good argument. The author's intent: to write an account of the events that have unfolded. Naturally, what would be your approach? To retell what you've experienced? But of course. Thus, if "Matthew" has had to rely on a second-hand document, then what's that telling you? That he didn't have any experiences to share? Almost certainly. Then why even entertain the idea he was a witness? Do away with the tradition that the Gospel of Matthew was indeed written by the Apostle Matthew.