No, at best they were written a generation after Jesus death and likely after the fall of the Temple.
@Mesaclone You seem to be ignorant of the early fathers. The idea of a post 70AD authorship is absurd, and is primarily tooled by those who need an excuse to explain the prophecy contained therein, predicting the fall of the temple. There is no actual textual argument that will hold your statement.
Mark MAY have been written before the 70's but, as you likely know, his Gospel is very different and tone and claims of divinity for Jesus...
All four of the Gospels are very different by design, each volunteering a different aspect or facet of Messiah - Matthew describes the King; Mark, the servant; Luke, the man; and John, of course, the God. This remarkable design is made even more remarkable in that it is interspersed with the testimony of each witness, differences in observation that witness to a writing in one's own hand - Almost like they were unaware that what they were writing would be viewed differently if taken corporately, which they very likely were. The Gospels stand, much like the prophets do, as an ingenious evidence of the Spirit of YHWH whispering in their ears.
And align the texts and one receives a stunning and incremental timeline of the whole of Yeshua's ministry - Nearly week by week. Often day by day. It is absolutely extraordinary.
As to authorship - The early fathers attest to their development - That Matthew was written and translated first. The early fathers lend an early attestation as to the authors of all the books, except Hebrews (though it sure sounds like Paul, and was early on among his epistles). There is no real reason to deny their witness, and that with the caveat that I hold little to be of value in Christian tradition. But the history found therein is certainly of value, as is the bare fact of their references to the Book.
especially when you take out the late addition of Mark 16:9-16:20 which was clearly a later addition to the text...as it is absent in the earliest copies of the Gospel.
That assumes the 'earliest manuscripts' are indeed complete, which is not necessarily true. I would suggest you look into the heptatic structures embedded in the text, as found by Ivan Panin... And to expand on his work, if converted to Hebrew, the encryption within the book converts to the OT encryption model... removing Mark 16: 9-20 breaks that encryption. but that is far too complicated a subject to prove in a thread on a forum.
I'm not "relying" on Gnostics, I simply noted the writings thereof.
Yes, while not informing your readers of the questionable nature of your source - Like in kind to
@Skeptic 's own.
That said, you'd be wrong to pretend that the authorship and origin of works like the Gospel of Thomas are any more dubious than that of the standard Gospels. Gospels like Nicodemus and Mary Magdelene are clearly late additions...but not all Gnostic texts should be lumped in with such works.
Yes they should, by the very nature of their attribution (without any witness), and their obvious attentiveness to gnostic themes. At best one could look for some sort of origin to qualify (like can be done with Tobit or Maccabees), but that, being so grievously bastardized, would have no value at all. Like in kind to OT psuedepigrapha, though I am less terse toward some of those, as some OT apocryphal books do have attestation, even quotation, and do conform to Biblical context... it is merely their pedigree and chain of custody that are in question.
Honestly, I'd take "scientific bias" as a compliment, as it simply means reason and analysis are being applied WITHOUT setting a predetermined end state solution
Not when it discounts the very evidence of the divine as being impossible - I tire of people who dismiss the supernatural because it empirically can't be so, and then deny God and gods in the next breath because that requires the supernatural... The same sort of circular thinking that gives us evolution by way of a phony geologic column and Egyptian historical dating primacy.
I never have and would not question anyone's faith, or the source thereof. My only arguments are aimed at textual analysis and getting as close to genuine sources as can be achieved through scientific method. Faith is a personal choice and not something I would ever judge in another human being.
You miss the point. My faith has naught to do with it. I will stand upon the evidence. The faith I need is only in the promise - That YHWH will do as he said he would. It is the evidence that leads me to that conclusion.
