And also arguing that the gospels can't be eyewitness testimonies because they don't spell out their own names and speak of themselves in the first person isn't a strong argument, there are truly forgery gospels that claim to have been written by Peter and the "Peter" speaks of himself in the first person. Moreover the canonical letters of Peter, James, Jude identify themselves as Apostolic and speak of themselves in the first person yet Skeptics still deny them as well.
Suggestion: reduce head movements because it may be quite distracting. (Content of the abductive inference regarding authorship is strong/good - similar to what NT scholar Brant J Pitre argued in one of his books)
They gave them “boring names” for some obvious reasons: 1. It was probably known that Peter was not literate. Therefore a reasonably educated companion (Mark) May have been an option. 2. Mathew - perhaps was chosen again for perhaps the same reason: being a tax collector he had the potential to write. 3. Luke was perhaps chosen for the same reason: an educated companion of Paul 4. John was perhaps chosen because of the “beloved disciple” references in that Gospel: Everyone probably knew Peter, James and John were the closest disciples; Peter had died in the 60s, James died before him. So only John was left. James Audlin has some evidence suggesting this last Gospel was actually from Mary Magdalene ( who had John the presbyter help her write the Gospel)- then it was redacted by the Johanine community multiple times to its current form. Who knows. The fact is the Gospels are anonymous- it’s possible that the 4 traditional authors are sources- the seem to sophisticated for common people to have written ( probably 2nd or 3rd generation Christians who had an élite educated)
You seem to be ignoring an awful lot of answers to these questions that are out there. Or problems with your position here? For example why Luke? Well you couldn't put a disciples name on it because the author at the very beginning of the Gospel tells us he wasn't a disciple. That seems pretty obvious to me? And the same person wrote Acts, which is focused on Paul. Luke is an obvious choice for an author based on Church tradition at the time. As to Mark, there already seemed to be a Gospel in circulation called the Gospel of Peter that was viewed as heretical. And having likely been written in Rome, where Peter was a founder of the Church there along with Paul (the Gospel of Luke essentially being Pauls Gospel), everyone expected a Gospel of Peter. And since Papias, everyone thought that Mark had written one. And so Mark. As to Matthew? Again, because of Papias people thought that Matthew had written a Gospel. So Matthew was named on the second Gospel. Ignoring the fact that even Papias said it was a list of sayings of Jesus and was written in Hebrew, and our Matthew is neither of those things. Or the fact that Matthew, an eyewitness supposedly, copied the story of how he met Jesus from Mark. This obviously makes no sense. And that's just the synoptic Gospels. John is a whole other issue given the date it was written. And I won't even get into Papias here. That's a whole other conversation.
And also arguing that the gospels can't be eyewitness testimonies because they don't spell out their own names and speak of themselves in the first person isn't a strong argument, there are truly forgery gospels that claim to have been written by Peter and the "Peter" speaks of himself in the first person.
Moreover the canonical letters of Peter, James, Jude identify themselves as Apostolic and speak of themselves in the first person yet Skeptics still deny them as well.
Great points!
Suggestion: reduce head movements because it may be quite distracting.
(Content of the abductive inference regarding authorship is strong/good - similar to what NT scholar Brant J Pitre argued in one of his books)
They gave them “boring names” for some obvious reasons:
1. It was probably known that Peter was not literate. Therefore a reasonably educated companion (Mark) May have been an option.
2. Mathew - perhaps was chosen again for perhaps the same reason: being a tax collector he had the potential to write.
3. Luke was perhaps chosen for the same reason: an educated companion of Paul
4. John was perhaps chosen because of the “beloved disciple” references in that Gospel: Everyone probably knew Peter, James and John were the closest disciples; Peter had died in the 60s, James died before him. So only John was left.
James Audlin has some evidence suggesting this last Gospel was actually from Mary Magdalene ( who had John the presbyter help her write the Gospel)- then it was redacted by the Johanine community multiple times to its current form.
Who knows.
The fact is the Gospels are anonymous- it’s possible that the 4 traditional authors are sources- the seem to sophisticated for common people to have written ( probably 2nd or 3rd generation Christians who had an élite educated)
You seem to be ignoring an awful lot of answers to these questions that are out there. Or problems with your position here? For example why Luke? Well you couldn't put a disciples name on it because the author at the very beginning of the Gospel tells us he wasn't a disciple. That seems pretty obvious to me? And the same person wrote Acts, which is focused on Paul. Luke is an obvious choice for an author based on Church tradition at the time.
As to Mark, there already seemed to be a Gospel in circulation called the Gospel of Peter that was viewed as heretical. And having likely been written in Rome, where Peter was a founder of the Church there along with Paul (the Gospel of Luke essentially being Pauls Gospel), everyone expected a Gospel of Peter. And since Papias, everyone thought that Mark had written one. And so Mark.
As to Matthew? Again, because of Papias people thought that Matthew had written a Gospel. So Matthew was named on the second Gospel. Ignoring the fact that even Papias said it was a list of sayings of Jesus and was written in Hebrew, and our Matthew is neither of those things. Or the fact that Matthew, an eyewitness supposedly, copied the story of how he met Jesus from Mark. This obviously makes no sense.
And that's just the synoptic Gospels. John is a whole other issue given the date it was written. And I won't even get into Papias here. That's a whole other conversation.