The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses (debate #2)

This has been a wonderful debate, and I will do my part in closing it by addressing those issues that seem to be of greatest importance to Con. “My opponent drops the fact that the fall of Jerusalem should have been included in a late authorship of Acts but mysteriously was not. The entire world knew of this event. Luke wrote the Gospel with the prophecy and failed to record the fulfillment in Acts?” Excuse me, but I did not drop this fact. I addressed it in R4. Do a word search for “Jimmy Carter,” and you will find it. “Rylands Papyri… Bishop of Antioch… My opponent then concedes this to be factual?” I do, in part. The Rylands Papyrus (P52) accounts for the gospel of John, and the writings of Ignatius account for Matthew (not all of the gospels), and Matthew and John are each given a maximum date of the early 2nd century CE, based on this external evidence. I prefer internal evidence, however, for dates that are earlier than that. The gospel of Matthew can be dated to ~80 CE, given its reliance on the gospel of Mark (minimum ~75 CE), and its maintenance of the apocalyptic deadlines of Jesus (maximum ~85 CE). I would settle on 80 CE for Matthew. The gospel of John contains evidence of embarrassment of the apocalyptic deadlines (John 21:20-23) and silence about the apocalyptic prophecies. This provides a minimum of ~85 CE. The maximum is provided by external evidence as Con has described, ~115 CE. I would settle on the date of John being 100 CE. A narrow date range is established with minimums and maximums. The reasoning is: minimum < x < maximum, so choose the most probable value for x between those limits. Con’s reasoning seems to be: x < maximum, therefore the proposed value of x is confirmed. The most controversial assertion I have made is possibly the point that John 21:20-23 reflects embarrassment of the apocalyptic deadline. Since this is the last round, I don’t want to open that new can of worms. It is meant only to explain that a minimum date is necessary, not just a maximum date. The relevant point is that Con’s evidences reflect merely maximum dates, not narrow date ranges of authorship, and he should explain how his maximum dates are relevant to confirm his dates at the expense of the dates held by myself and/or critical scholars. Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, Con claimed, “Carsten Thiede supported O’Callaghan’s work with an evidence that this was a clear reference to the first century name for the Sea of Galilee within the text.” Con then gave a link: https://www.eisenbrauns.com... Unfortunately, the link goes to “The page cannot be found,” and I have failed to track down the scholarly source of this argument. Con adds, “There are no other competing theories to this document. The other scholars are just uncertain.” Following from the arguments I presented per reference [10] of R4, there are no competing theories, nor should there be, exactly because of the uncertainty--the fragment can fit anything, including some known texts that are allegedly a fit than to the gospel of Mark, including “various texts of the Old Testament or apocryphal literature.” Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are known to be made up entirely of Old Testament and non-Christian Jewish apocryphal literature, it is a more plausible hypothesis than the proposition that the fragment is part of the gospel of Mark. I before dropped the points on miracles and Q for lack of characters in the last round, but Con is persisting with them, so I will address them again now. “For my opponent’s assertion to have any bearing he must show that these miracles did not occur and were indeed inserted later as the myth developed in every single secular record.” “My opponent has done nothing to show that miracles get added to texts that are of a later origin. This is just speculation. How could this possibly be known by anyone?” The argument is very basic. 1) It is a pattern of history that miracles are demonstrably far more likely to be present in myths instead of eyewitness accounts. 2) The gospels contain accounts of miracles. 3) Therefore, the gospels are far more likely to be myths. I have no need to prove the negative that the miracles did not occur, because I need only to show the pattern that miracles tend to occur in myths, not eyewitness accounts, for the argument to hold. I gave examples of myth sources with miracles in Problem 3 of R2, and I listed ancient eyewitness accounts without miracles in Problem 4 of R2. Concerning the Q document, Con claimed, “The Historical and majority view of historians that a direct shared witness can account for ALL of the similarities and BETTER accounts for ALL the dissimilarities.” Since Con has resorted to arguments from authority, I can work with that. On page 89 of reference [11]: “Most scholars think that Q must have been a written document; otherwise it is difficult to explain such long stretches of verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke.” The author, Bart D. Ehrman, is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [12], accredited by the regional Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools [13]. The textbook is intended for “undergraduate and seminary classes in the New Testament, Biblical Studies, and Christian Origins” [14]. If Con wishes to put aside arguments from authority, which I believe is more than appropriate, then my argument for Marcan priority in R3 still stands. Con has one last round to address these arguments, and he will have the final say. I hope he makes the most of it! Thank you, Gileandos, and cheers. References [11] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd edition, 2004, p. 89. [12] http://www.bartdehrman.com... [13] http://oira.unc.edu... [14] http://www.amazon.com...