The Canonical Gospels Have No Authority

[FallentoReason]

Hey everyone, it's me again! I know last time I disappeared yet again, and I can't guarantee that this time it won't be any different... but anyways, I'm writing up this thread because I've recently started reading a book which has essentially given me the broader picture of this whole New Testament business, and what the ancients have to tell us about it. So, I'll get right into it:

What would it mean for the Canonical Gospels to have no authority? Well, there a number of things:

• That we don't know who wrote them
  
• That they're not eye-witness accounts
  
• That they were not the prime material of the early Church
  

This list is obviously by no means exhaustive.

In this thread, I want to focus on the last point.

The most direct way to show this, is simply by noting that no Church Father before Ireaneus (who wrote around 180 C.E.) makes even the slightest mention of any Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, or makes the slightest quotation about a passage found in what are now the Canonical Gospels. They do however, quote plenty from other gospels that were about the place during their time. Some of these gospels are still extant, while others are unfortunately not, but it's clear enough that what they quoted isn't to be found in our four Canonical Gospels.

Since I can't directly show evidence of a negative (that they don't mention our four gospels) all I can really do is provide a list of Church Fathers/apologists who apparently had no knowledge of the most important writings available to them - the witness accounts of their Lord and Saviour.

Here they are:

• Clement of Rome (?-99 C.E.)
  
• Ignatius of Antioch (35 - 107 C.E.)
  
• Polycarp of Smyrna (69 - 155 C.E.)
  
• Papias of Hierapolis (100 - 200 C.E.) ~ wrote 5 volumes regarding the sayings of Christ
  
• Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.) ~ wrote the "Memoirs of the Apostles" which never once refers to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John
  

Let the Christian decide how plausible this is, that the most important writings of the first century went completely unnoticed until ~180 C.E.

The more reasonable conclusion is that our Canonical Gospels aren't the works of eye witnesses, but rather late gospels which simply recount what the Christian thought had evolved to be by then. This of course, gives us no justification to be calling our Canonical Gospels "authoritative", let alone "history".