The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses

IntroductionI welcome deonclintmoore to Debate.org, and I hope he has a positive experience.Con supports the traditional doctrine that each of the gospel authors were written by their namesakes. Con said that they walked with Christ, which matches the traditional belief only roughly: the Christian tradition has it that only two of the gospel authors were reputedly disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John), and the other two were reputedly close associates of the disciples (Mark and Luke), not necessarily associates of Jesus (though potentially so). On the other hand, I share the belief generally held among modern "critical" scholars, which is that the authors were neither eyewitnesses nor direct associates of the eyewitnesses.There are many reasons for this critical position, and I list five of the reasons as follows:1. The problem of language and education2. The problem of lack of self-referencing3. The problem of miracles4. The synoptic problem5. The problem of literary seams of John Each of these five problems is a problem for the traditional hypothesis, but they each find a solution in the hypothesis that the gospels were sourced from Christian myths. I describe each problem in detail below.1. The problem of language and educationWe know from the gospels that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic as their primary language (see Mark 5:41, 7:34, 11:9, 14:36, 15:34, Matthew 5:18, 5:22, 27:6, 27:46, Luke 1:6, 1:15, 16:9-13, and John 20:16). The canonical gospels, on the other hand, are written exclusively in the language of fluent speakers [1] of Koine Greek. Since Jesus and his disciples were rural Galileans (i.e. Mark 14:70), it is unlikely (and unevidenced) that they spoke Greek as a second language.The critical hypothesis expects this evidence, because we know that Christianity became most popular primarily among Greek speakers, not Aramaic speakers, in the first century and onward, as the remainder of the canon and the writings of the 2nd-century church fathers are composed in that language.I would like to know how Con explains this problem. For example, one apologetic proposal is that the gospel authors spent many years of their lives learning Greek before writing the gospels. For any proposed solution, Con should show its probability, not just its possibility.2. The problem of lack of self-referencingIt has always been a well-known problem that the gospel authors do not identify themselves by name in their own writings. The earliest evidence of attribution of the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the respective gospels are in the second century. But, the problem goes well beyond the lack of self-naming. If the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then we would expect that, at least occasionally, the author identifies or alludes to his own role in the narrative, such as by writing with a singular first-person pronoun ("I" or "me"). For example, we strongly expect the author to sometimes write something like "Jesus said to me..."This consistency of the gospel style of narration is not expected of an eyewitness account. However, it is strongly expected of ancient Greco-Roman biographies that are sourced from myths, such as those of Plutarch, Suetonius and Tacitus. Such authors were not part of the narrative, so the lack of first-person pronouns is fully expected.To be fair, the book of Acts is thought by critical scholars to be written by the same author as the gospel of Luke, and, though it does not use a singular first person pronoun ("I" or "me"), it does make plentiful use of plural first person pronouns ("we" and "us"). With no "I" or "me" in either Luke or Acts, but "we" many times in Acts, it is a problem that demands a solution, and the best solution seems be that "we" is the vestige of sourcing from a written itinerary of the journey of Paul [2]. This source would indeed be an eyewitness account. Unfortunately, neither Acts nor this speculated source concerns the life of Jesus, and the resolution stands.3. The problem of miraclesThe gospels contain many attestations to miracles and other unlikely attestations to suit the interests of Christian authors and their audience, but miracles are simply not expected of eyewitness accounts. However, they are expected of myths. For example, the ancient accounts of Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, and Pythagorus all contained miracles and were all sourced from myths, not eyewitnesses. This argument is not merely an argument from personal incredulity, but it is based on the patterns of history and the modern age.4. The synoptic problemCon, to his credit, has discussed the synoptic problem, and I affirm that Matthew and Luke each used prior written sources of Mark and Q. This solution is a strong difficulty for the hypothesis of eyewitness sourcing, because ancient eyewitnesses seemingly never did such a thing. Neither Hannibal nor Pliny nor Suetonius nor Marcus Aurelius nor Horace nor Caesar nor Cicero nor Juvenal nor the Apostle Paul nor any other confirmed eyewitness author ever used prior written sources to borrow the old text for his own new account. It would be greatly unexpected, because it simply would not be necessary. It is, however, expected of myth. For example, per the well-established Documentary Hypothesis, it is almost universally accepted among Old Testament scholars that the non-eyewitness myths contained in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers each sourced from prior written texts. [3]5. The problem of literary seams of John"John" is reputed by tradition to be a core disciple, but this author, too, very seemingly sourced from prior written texts, weaving at least three different texts together into one account. Among the many solid arguments for this, the strongest is the presence of many apparent "literary seams." Since the details of the argument would be lengthy and Con is already willing to admit prior sourcing of written texts by eyewitness authors, I will leave out the details. If Con strongly objects, then I can describe the argument in a later round. Otherwise, the arguments are described on pages 164-166 of reference [1].ConclusionThere are other solid arguments for the non-eyewitness mythical sourcing of the gospels, such as the serious contradictions, the problem of the dialogue with Pilate, and the evolving theological perspectives of the gospels. But, the five arguments alone, described above in detail, provide a strong case against the hypothesis of direct eyewitness sourcing of the gospels, in favor of the hypothesis of sourcing from myths. If Con would prefer to focus heavily on only a subset of these arguments, of his own choosing, let's say only three of these arguments instead of all five, then that will be acceptable to me, and I hope the voters will be equally generous. I have strong confidence in all five arguments, and I am willing to grant Con the advantage.References[1] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd edition, 2004, pp. 58-59.[2] Martin Dibelius, "The Acts of the Apostles as an Historical Source," in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 1956, p. 104.[3] Richard E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 1987.