The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[DeistPaladin]

II.B.1. – Who Wrote the Gospels?


While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, 

Actually, yes, it is. If the authors are unknown, it damages the credibility of what is supposed to be an eye-witness account. 

it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

Actually, no. Eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence in a court of law and of no value whatsoever in science. Furthermore, this statement conflates eye-witness testimony with hearsay testimony (reporting what someone else heard or saw), the latter being totally inadmissible in a court of law. 

So, who wrote the gospels?

Authorship is established "by tradition" according to Bible scholars themselves. 

Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:

No, it's not true that I "must" do anything. 
As I've explained to you before, it is not my job as a skeptic to fill in all the blanks to your satisfaction and explain the universe to you. It is up to YOU to offer evidence for what you believe and why. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that I haven't offered you a good enough alternative is not sufficient reason for you to fill it in with Jesus because you want to. This is the logical fallacy "Argument from Ignorance".
You and other apologists also seem fond of the "Argument from Incredulity" fallacy. Example, "I can't imagine why they would have believed the resurrection if it hadn't happened." or "I can't imagine why they would use Matthew, a tax collector, if he really wasn't the author." This is not valid reasoning. Just because you can't imagine something happening doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.

How do you know this? What is your source? Irenaeus suggests that Matthew actually wrote first in Aramaic, so I'm curious as to why you hold this to be the case.

Every Bible scholar I know of says these are the dates. I've never heard this theory that Matthew was written first, and I have researched a great number of apologetic arguments. That Matthew is based on Mark seems undisputed. 

To be more precise, it would probably have been written BEFORE AD 70. If you're going to attempt to dismantle me in "bloody" fashion, I expect you to use that razor with great precision.

Most scholars do date Mark to around 70 CE, budging it a few years prior to about 65. After 70 CE is what's actually indicated, unless you want to propose that the future really was foretold. That being the case, the burden of proof is on you.

Ah, there you go. So, that's not quite the same as saying that "he heard a bunch of stuff from a bunch of places" now, is it?

Is there a part of "mostly" you don't understand? There are parts of "Mark's" Gospel that Peter could not have witnessed, and so we must look to other sources of information. So we have hearsay stacked on top of anonymous hearsay. 

Which is not terribly problematic when you actually THINK.

 
Get ready for it... Here it comes...

After the resurrection, Jesus spent 40 days with the disciples. And after the ascension, the disciples spent 10 more days waiting for Pentecost. What do you think the boys were discussing all during that time? So, apart from the fact that scripture says that Jesus was teaching his disciples, there is also the promise of the Holy Spirit to remind them of all that Jesus had said to them during his ministry.

Yes, MAGIC! Ladies and gentlemen, magic. That's the answer. Jesus told Peter because he rose from the dead. And we have the Holy Spirit filling in the blanks for them. 

The Pontifical Biblical Commission of the Catholic Church (which was there in the beginning) says it was Mark. My Ignatius Study Bible says the same. And I have Papias, Irenaeus and Origen among countless others, so I don't give a rip what the editors of the footnotes of your Protestant Bible have to say.

Well, do take it up with Oxford University then and tell them they got it all wrong. Let me know how that works out for you.

Are you suggesting that Mark was unaware of the resurrection after travelling with Peter and Paul all those years?   

I'm not speculating anything about what Mark was or wasn't aware of. I'm pointing out to you that chapter 16 of his Gospel was altered at a later time. The tale of the resurrection got better with the telling. This is not a point disputed by Bible scholars.

To properly review, Mark is:

• Written by the companion of Peter and Paul
  
• Written prior to AD 53
  
• Based upon the preaching and eye-witness accounts of Peter 
  
• "Mixed" with the eye-witness accounts of other apostles whom Mark would have heard during his travels with Peter and Paul
  
• Accurate up to and including the addition of the second ending
  

Respectively:

• Prove it
  
• Prove it
  
• Hearsay even if true.
  
• Hearsay even if true.
  
• Unproven and why the changed ending if he got it right the first time?