A few comments, then, out of courtesy, which mostly consist of expressing disagreement without detailed discussion:
I'm afraid that I am wary of such claims in such language. By "internal evidence" here we do not mean things like direct statements; but rather inferences of various sorts, which may be little better than speculation. In general I wouldn't spend very much time on the value of such inferences made by people 2,000 years later in a different culture. I am aware that by saying this I am volunteering for a list of "bible difficulties" to be posted; but anyone can do that. Such things long predate modern scholarship and reflect, not scholarly investigation, but a desire to evade the content of the text. It was this kind of "evidence" that led people to date John to 170 AD, despite the clear testimony of the ancients - people who knew the author, for crissakes! - and it wasn't true.Diogenes the Cynic wrote:The internal evidence alone excludes any possibility of eyewitness testimony.
No indeed. But arguing from that silence that this shows they were not seems rather brave to me!They don't claim to come from witnesses.
We are back to the list of "bible difficulties". Any text can be objected to in this fashion. Real anachronisms, of the kind that demonstrated that the Donation of Constantine was forged, are not found.they are riddled with historical anachronisms and errors,
I'm afraid I pay no attention to NT scholarship so I couldn't tell you what the "consensus" is (I can tell you what the likes of Bart Ehrman claim, but I rather doubt he speaks for the immensely learned scholars of France or Italy). I imagine it is, as it has always been, the opinions of those who control university appointments in the time and place in question. I don't find appeals to the authority of paid scholars, on matters of controversy, at all interesting, and nor should you. Scholarship isn't science. The consensus is fine, on matters where there is no controversy; but as soon as politics and religion creep in, we need to be very sceptical. What we need is data, and that says the contrary. It is impossible to see Acts as post 61; and with that, the composition of the synoptics, all clearly related, must be pulled back to that sort of period. Curiously that is what the ancient writers say also.they are clearly post-70 (no matter what Roger says, he knows the scholarship is not with him on this),
Um. I wonder what the ancients say about the style of the gospels? But suppose it was so; how would this be relevant? We all know that Josephus employed style editors to smooth his own text.they are written in educated Greek (even Mark. His Greek may superficially appear to be casual and crude, but his chiastic structures indicate formal training).
I believe somebody has sold a book claiming so. But I have found, over time, that such books are endless. And they all tell different stories, amusingly enough. We have to remain sceptical. Never read just one book; read loads.Mark can be shown to be sometimes re-writing Septuagint narratives ...
I'm afraid I prefer the testimony of a man who knew the apostles to the speculations of people 2,000 years later.Mark as a secretary of Peter is simply untenable - it makes no such claim on its own behalf, it is filled with geographical and legal mistakes that could not have come from a witness, (etc)
You get the idea, at any event. I just don't see the point of all this speculation. That the gospels are what they appear to be - the products of the apostolic circle - satisfies all the data. The details of their production are largely unknown to us, but such details as we know confirm that. For all we know Matthew, Mark and Luke used to have lunch together at an agreeable restaurant just off the Argiletum in Rome every Friday between 60-64 AD. If so, it would render a lot of what is written about the synoptics, with great learning and great pomp, pure waste paper. Let's be sceptical.
All the best,
Roger Pearse