Vinnie

If that statement was true, then we should simply dispute the traditional authorship of these other works because the Gospels were not authored by the names they now bare. I have no problem dismissing all traditional authorship in antuiquity or even the textual veracity of all such works. If the evidence is too sparse then we should admit it. Some actual historians might not be as inclined as this amatuer to do so but it is no wonder since such an action would put them all out of a job!

Canonical Mark, which JP is arguing for here wasn't even the earliest version of Mark. For all we know it might look very little like the first version(s). See this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=56359

Vinnie

Roland

If Matthew were written by an apostle and John were also written by an apostle, why are their accounts (supposedly based on eyewitness testimony) so different - not only in what they say Jesus did but what they say Jesus SAID?

And why would Mark, who supposedly learned his info. from Peter, side so much with Matthew and not at all with John? Weren't Matthew and Peter listening when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life" or the famous John 3:16?

It makes absolutely no sense that these gospels could have been written by the people whose names adorn them. Four independent, eyewitness accounts would never result in three accounts that are very similar and one that is very different.

Vinnie

I duscussed exactly that issue here:

http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html

Vinnie