First let me clear up something. I wrote:
No. I'm saying Paul didn't write the gospel named "Paul".
I have absolutely no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that. Was I a tad to much into the cooking sherry? In any case, I retract that as being a wrong assertion.
That said, I think this is where we left off.
We won't have to step too far back. I suspect that point is right here. The record claims to be either eyewitness or the recorded testimony of eyewitness. Now if I accept your contention the authors
were most certainly not contemporaneous to Jesus that would certainly impeach their testimony of being 'eyewitness'. It would open the door for discounting most any of the new testament.
Why are you biased toward thinking the authors
- weren't eyewitness
- weren't who we traditionally understand them to be
Again, I am not a biblical scholar so I cannot give you an authoritative response. So let me take Mark and give just one line of reasoning in response to your bullet points.
First, note that none of the four gospels in the bible names their authors. Thus, we have to look to extra-biblical sources.
Eusebius (Book III) reports on fragments of the writings of Papias, a second-century Bishop. Papias acknowledged that he was a collector of oral lore regarding the early church. Eusebius quotes Papias as follows:
This, too, the presbyter used to say, "Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's"
So, in the second century, it was acknowledged that the author of Mark was not an eyewitness but knew somebody who was.
But note the fourth-hand nature of this information: a "presbyter" believed that Mark wrote down Peter's memories as reported by a second century author as reported by a fourth century author. Also note that the "Mark" cited above cannot be the disciple Mark.
So that is just one tiny example of the line of reasoning that leads me to the conclusion that the names of the gospels do not reflect their authorship nor are they the works of eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death.
Again, much of this is based on the book I cited earlier. There is much more direct and indirect evidence but, as I stated, I am not qualified to lay it all out.
