Determining Biblical Authorship

[Tart]

This topic is to present evidence and/or reasoning to establish if Biblical Authorship is authentic or non-authentic... Although I have seen many post throughout the years claiming that, for example, some of Paul's epistles are fakes and some are real, I'm searching for the actual evidence that would determine someone to be persuaded one way or the other. Ill have to note a disclaimer right now, that I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm very interested in it, as this is important for Christianity... And I'm namely talking about the New testament, but if anyone would like to discuss a book in the Old Testament that would be ok as well.

Here is a website that I just google with a quick search that ill say I might agree as what they say is "The New Testament - A Brief Overview" on authorship, as a quick starting point. (and note, I don't know why they have 1 Peter and 2 Peter, I think that may be a mistake on their part, but lets assume it is all on Peter even though I have heard 2 peter is a fraud)

Are these claims of authorship true or not? Why?

https://www.bible-history.com/new-testa ... thors.html

(and as my computer time is running out at the library, ill put off posting the actual evidence of why I agree with some of these claims in the linked website, but will post it in a future date. Namely supporting the traditionally held authorship of the Gospels)

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 38 by Mithrae]

Ya, I have heard this argument before about the "scripture", and i dont think there is a definite answer... I do believe it is possible that documents that depict, at least parts of Jesus life could have been in circulation, perhap document Q for example... But im not sure. And It would be likely this meant some kind of written word, opposed to the very early chants that the Christians developed.. Even though i suppose the chants themselves could have been written down..

Even if that were so (which is pure speculation) there'd still be the problems firstly of such hypothetical documents becoming regarded as authoritative Scripture at an unprecedented rate, and secondly that they were supposedly regarded as such widely enough for Paul to quote them and yet apparently not important enough to have been preserved. When you're stacking the problem of their non-preservation on top of the problem of unprecedented rate of canonization on top of the problem of their purely speculative existence on top of the other problems with the Pastorals already outlined by Difflugia, it simply becomes staggeringly improbable for all the coincidences or speculative solutions required to actually line up.

Also noteworthy now that I think of it are the views of Marcion, who was a huge fan of Paul but apparently rejected the Pastoral epistles. The absence of early Christian authors' endorsement of a particular work needn't mean much, given the slow rate of copying and transmission of material in those days. But of the Pauline epistles according to this perhaps conservative-leaning source, in the time before Irenaeus (c. 180 CE) every single generally-accepted epistle besides Philemon (unsurprisingly) was endorsed by Marcion and at least two other early Christian sources: Marcion also endorsed the questionable 2 Thessalonians (the only early author besides Polycarp to do so) and even genuine but trivial Philemon (the only early author to do so)... yet he rejected the Pastorals. Since he is accused of simply editing out points of doctrine which he didn't like in the other Pauline epistles, that cannot be the reason for his rejection. This strongly suggests either that he knew the Pastorals to be spurious, or else they were written so far into the 2nd century that they remained even lesser-known than Philemon.

But besides the point, I dont think Luke 21:24 is a good way to date the Gospel to after the fall of the temple. This certainly could have been a prophecy and they say Jesus spoke these words himself... We also have Jesus saying "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations..." And no one will date it based on those words becuase we know for a fact those words existed before they were fulfilled...

That very verse 21:24 says that the Jews would "be taken away as captives among all nations." The good news was preached among all those nations even before the Jewish war. Mark's version may indeed have been written before the Jewish war, but Luke's version of the story differs from both Mark 13 and Matthew 24: The two earlier authors have Jesus referring to Daniel's 'abomination of desolation,' a clearly eschatological sign, while in 21:20 Luke changes this to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies." So either Mark and Matthew are wrong, or else Luke changed the story a bit and inserted an indefinite "times of the Gentiles" to downplay any immediate expectation of Jesus' return, because it still hadn't happened in the years after the temple's destruction*. It would be a compelling argument on its own, while the Luke/Acts dependency on Josephus is even further proof.


* Incidentally the treatment of eschatology is also a reason why I'm unconvinced by the many scholars who date Matthew's gospel into the 80s CE: The author's absolute conviction of Jesus' imminent return, changing the wording in Mt. 16:28 and inventing a whole new prophecy in 10:23, can only possibly make sense within a few years of the temple's destruction.

The earliest sources on Mark's composition imply (Papias) and explicitly state (Irenaeus) that it was written or at least finalized after the death of Peter, believed to have been in 64 CE. Later sources - perhaps embarrassed of authorship by the comparatively unknown Mark - retract that tradition to suggest that it was written during Peter's lifetime (Clement of Alexandria) or even at Peter's explicit direction (Origen).

[Mithrae]

Reposted from another thread:

The apparent origin of attribution to "Mark" is from Papias (technically, Eusebius quoting Papias from a document that we no longer have). Papias wrote this:

And John the Presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpeter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord's discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in any thing, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by any thing that he heard, or to state any thing falsely in these accounts.

The problem with this is that it doesn't sound like our Gospel of Mark. Though that quote is often used as an apologetic explanation for why things happen in a slightly different order between Matthew and Mark, the document that Papias describes was made up of "instruction" from Peter rather than "a history of our Lord's discourses." Our Mark sounds much more like a history of our Lord's discourses than instruction from Peter. It's also mostly in chronological order, even considering the minor discrepancies with Matthew.

The English translation of Papias you're using doesn't seem to say what you're suggesting; it says (as do all other translations I've seen) that Peter's instruction to his hearers was not a history but was adapted as necessary. Of Mark's actual writing it does not say that it's not presented as a history, only that the recollected stories are not in order. Your translation explicitly suggests chronological order, while others seem less specific. The extant gospel of Mark clearly has some kind of order to it, but besides the first chapter and Jesus' final week, for the most part we have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't a chronological order. I don't think there's any reason to suppose that Matthew or Luke are reliable points of comparison if they simply mimicked and modified Mark.

- If Papias accepted the Johannine chronology as factual, or some other specific alternative, his comments on Mark could refer to the extant gospel. (Notably, Papias attributes his information to "John the Elder, a disciple of the Lord"; thanks to the fragmentary information available it's not clear whether he considered him the author of the fourth gospel, or even knew of the fourth gospel's existence, but given this comment on the ordering of Mark's work that's a distinct possibility worth considering.)
- If Papias was simply relaying information that Mark was not in chronological order without any specific alternative in mind, his comments on Mark could still refer to the extant gospel
- Only if his comments translate to "there is no order whatsoever in what Mark wrote," then they are not realistically compatible with gMark (though it could still be the case that Papias' information was simply wrong; it would be an important point, but hardly disprove Markan authorship)

I agree with your comments on gMatthew vs. Papias' Matthew. But the interesting thing is that if the hypothetical Q sayings source did exist, it could easily have been a Greek translation of Matthew's sayings of Jesus. We'd then be in a situation where Papias named two prominent early Christian gospels, both gMatthew and Luke used one of them, and the second source used by both gMatthew and Luke is probably at least compatible with the other. It would make sense for 'Matthew,' Luke and Papias to all share some familiarity with the records indirectly left by the apostles Peter and Matthew. Conversely, it would make little sense for the written records of Peter's instruction to disappear without a trace. While the actual quote from Papias provides little basis for or against supposing that he meant canonical Mark, his early attestation to a writing by Mark increases the probability that the work known to later tradition as Mark's was correctly preserved and identified.

Irenaeus is the one that took the description of Papias and attached it to what we know as the Gospel of Mark by quoting from it. Every other early Christian writer that I'm aware of simply takes Irenaeus at his word.

That's... kind of true. However Justin Martyr cites gMark fairly unambiguously in the story of Zebedee's sons being called Boanerges, and apparently attributes it to the 'memoirs' of Peter. This would be perfectly understandable if gMark was indeed written by Peter's interpreter, but difficult to explain in any other scenario:
"And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder..."

(I've removed Schaff's capitalization of pronouns above as I generally do with biblical quotes, since I understand they are not found in the original text and at times are more a matter of interpretation than translation; folk as diverse as Bart Erhman and D. M. Murdock apparently agree that "memoirs of him that this so happened" means the memoirs of the guy renamed Peter, not the memoirs of Jesus as Schaff's capitalization would imply. I should also note that Erhman apparently considers it a reference to the 'Gospel of Peter'... but from past study and current Googling I've found absolutely no basis for that supposition nor for rejecting the obvious Markan citation.)

[Willum]

I haven’t seen anyone post that the original letters/books of the Bible were destroyed after they’d been copied.
This is certainly true, as the originals don’t exist.

Doesn’t this invalidate all of them? As I would want them preserved, unless they disagreed with the copies...

[Tart]

[Replying to Mithrae]

Mithrae, out of curiosity, what do you believe about the authorship of the Pauline Epistles? Also the other authors in the NT?

[Mithrae]

Mithrae, out of curiosity, what do you believe about the authorship of the Pauline Epistles?

Besides the Pastorals, I haven't learned or discussed much about the other Pauline letters. Seven of his letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) are almost universally regarded as genuine, which is quite remarkable considering the fine tooth combing for discrepancies they are subjected to. Some of the arguments raised against authenticity in the case of Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians seem very weak - almost as if Paul should be expected to write about all the same topics in every letter, never introducing new themes or changing his opinions at all. Of those three I would guess 2 Thessalonians the most likely to be spurious, but it's not the near-certainty of forgery that we have in the case of 1 Timothy and the other Pastorals, not by a long shot.

Also the other authors in the NT?

As outlined above, gMatthew almost certainly was not written by the apostle Matthew; perhaps by a 'Matthean community' incorporating the apostle's actual sayings of Jesus/Q source into a more complete narrative, but that's pure speculation and depends on the Q hypothesis being correct (which I've leaned more towards doubting recently). What we do know about gMatthew is that it's from a Jewish Christian group and primarily intended for a Jewish audience, possibly in Syria (it's the only gospel to say Jesus was known in Syria). As above I would say it was almost certainly written around 70-74 CE, though apparently many/most scholars date it in the 80s or later largely based on a presumed time-frame required for the trend towards Rabbinic Judaism to become clear, which gMatthew seems intended to counterbalance (I agree that's a theme in Matthew, I just don't think it's valid to assume that with the temple, priests, Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes largely wiped out in the war, it would still take a decade or more before an author could realize that the Pharisees/rabbinic tradition would become the leading trend of Judaism).

The gospel of Mark was written before Matthew, hence probably around 65-71CE, apparently for a Gentile audience. I don't know of any real reason to suppose it wasn't written by Mark, but the evidence for Markan authorship isn't exactly overwhelming. I'd give it 50/50 odds maybe. One particularly interesting theory about Mark is the strong possibility that its final chapters were based on a very early written Passion narrative.

Luke/Acts was written sometime after 76 CE, apparently by a companion of Paul, and "The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke." But some scholars question whether the two are by the same author, and even that manuscript attribution is quite late. 55% likelihood they were written by Luke or another 10% by some other companion of Paul, maybe?

John I would say has the highest likelihood of a correctly identified author, by a considerable margin: Of the four it has both the clearest internal attribution (albeit only claiming to be by an unspecified disciple, John 1:14, 19:35), probably the earliest 'external' confirmation of authorship (confirmed in the appendix, likely added shortly after the beloved disciple's death, to have been written by him), and the only one with clear and specific identification of author prior to Irenaeus (indeed by multiple disparate sources, the Valentinians Ptolemy and Heracleon both attributing it to John). So perhaps an 80% likelihood it was written by the beloved disciple, who was almost certainly John (though a distant second contender would be Lazarus... very distant if one doesn't accept the story of him being raised to life ).
viewtopic.php?p=409752#409752

[SallyF]

Mithrae, out of curiosity, what do you believe about the authorship of the Pauline Epistles?

Besides the Pastorals, I haven't learned or discussed much about the other Pauline letters. Seven of his letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon) are almost universally regarded as genuine, which is quite remarkable considering the fine tooth combing for discrepancies they are subjected to. Some of the arguments raised against authenticity in the case of Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians seem very weak - almost as if Paul should be expected to write about all the same topics in every letter, never introducing new themes or changing his opinions at all. Of those three I would guess 2 Thessalonians the most likely to be spurious, but it's not the near-certainty of forgery that we have in the case of 1 Timothy and the other Pastorals, not by a long shot.

Also the other authors in the NT?

As outlined above, gMatthew almost certainly was not written by the apostle Matthew; perhaps by a 'Matthean community' incorporating the apostle's actual sayings of Jesus/Q source into a more complete narrative, but that's pure speculation and depends on the Q hypothesis being correct (which I've leaned more towards doubting recently). What we do know about gMatthew is that it's from a Jewish Christian group and primarily intended for a Jewish audience, possibly in Syria (it's the only gospel to say Jesus was known in Syria). As above I would say it was almost certainly written around 70-74 CE, though apparently many/most scholars date it in the 80s or later largely based on a presumed time-frame required for the trend towards Rabbinic Judaism to become clear, which gMatthew seems intended to counterbalance (I agree that's a theme in Matthew, I just don't think it's valid to assume that with the temple, priests, Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes largely wiped out in the war, it would still take a decade or more before an author could realize that the Pharisees/rabbinic tradition would become the leading trend of Judaism).

The gospel of Mark was written before Matthew, hence probably around 65-71CE, apparently for a Gentile audience. I don't know of any real reason to suppose it wasn't written by Mark, but the evidence for Markan authorship isn't exactly overwhelming. I'd give it 50/50 odds maybe. One particularly interesting theory about Mark is the strong possibility that its final chapters were based on a very early written Passion narrative.

Luke/Acts was written sometime after 76 CE, apparently by a companion of Paul, and "The oldest manuscript with the start of the gospel, Papyrus Bodmer XIV (ca. 200 CE), proclaims that it is the euangelion kata Loukan, the Gospel according to Luke." But some scholars question whether the two are by the same author, and even that manuscript attribution is quite late. 55% likelihood they were written by Luke or another 10% by some other companion of Paul, maybe?

John I would say has the highest likelihood of a correctly identified author, by a considerable margin: Of the four it has both the clearest internal attribution (albeit only claiming to be by an unspecified disciple, John 1:14, 19:35), probably the earliest 'external' confirmation of authorship (confirmed in the appendix, likely added shortly after the beloved disciple's death, to have been written by him), and the only one with clear and specific identification of author prior to Irenaeus (indeed by multiple disparate sources, the Valentinians Ptolemy and Heracleon both attributing it to John). So perhaps an 80% likelihood it was written by the beloved disciple, who was almost certainly John (though a distant second contender would be Lazarus... very distant if one doesn't accept the story of him being raised to life ).
viewtopic.php?p=409752#409752

Which all goes to show that we don't actually KNOW who wrote ANY of this so-called "scripture".

It may have been put together by the Bethlehem Ladies Knitting Circle.

The honest answer is …

We cannot verify WHO wrote so much as a word of it.

And we have even less evidence (no I'm NOT going to define "evidence") that anyone's version of "God" had anything to do with what is passed off as the "Word of God".

It's all very fluffy stuff to risk one's immortal soul on …!!!

[historia]

As outlined above, gMatthew almost certainly was not written by the apostle Matthew; perhaps by a 'Matthean community' incorporating the apostle's actual sayings of Jesus/Q source into a more complete narrative, but that's pure speculation and depends on the Q hypothesis being correct (which I've leaned more towards doubting recently).

I'm not sure why you think Q is important on this point.

The two-source hypothesis and it's leading rivals are ultimately explaining how Luke ended up with much of the same material as Matthew. In the case of the two-source hypothesis, Luke got the double tradition from Q. On the Farrer or Augustinian hypotheses, Luke got it from Matthew.

But on all three hypotheses Matthew got his material (that is not in Mark) from some other source. Whether that source is (ultimately) the apostle Matthew is uncertain, of course. But that determination doesn't seem to hinge in any way on the two-source hypothesis being correct, as far as I can see.

Luke/Acts was written sometime after 76 CE . . . But some scholars question whether the two are by the same author

This is now the second time this point has been made, and I'm honestly scratching my head as to why this idea would be highlighted in a high-level summary of New Testament authorship. To say that this is a minority position would be a massive understatement. In fact, I'm not certain it would be correct to say that 'scholars' (plural) question this. Is there any living scholar other than Patricia Walters (cited above) who holds this view?

[historia]

The Oxford Bible Commentary is a fantastic, one-volume commentary on the whole Bible . . . It doesn't include the actual Bible text, but includes a much more in-depth commentary on each book than The Oxford Annotated Bible.

This is why I think study bibles are not a good investment.

There is really no good reason to have the entire text of the Bible printed together with a commentary, since everyone already has a Bible they can read alongside the commentary anyway. And devoting half or more of each page to the biblical text itself, as study Bibles typically do, leaves little room for actual notes and analysis, resulting in a rather short and thin commentary.

Instead, for roughly the same price, you could buy a one-volume biblical commentary that is nothing but notes and analysis, giving you substantially longer and more in-depth exegesis.

I've made great use of the New Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary (1971) over the years. But, if buying a single-volume commentary today, I'd opt for the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (2003).

If you want to go right to the best, look for volumes of The Anchor Yale Bible Commentary

It is perhaps worth pointing out that reviewers of this series often note the uneven nature of its volumes. While many are quite good, it appears some are not.

[Goose]

[*]John is technically anonymous, but claims of authorship are based on the whole "disciple that Jesus loved" thing. There are lingustic reasons for thinking it wasn't written by the Apostle John (or any of the disciples) and textual reasons for thinking "the disciple that Jesus loved" may not have been John.

But are those linguistic and textural reasons sufficient to overturn the weight of external evidence?

I posted the following evidence in another thread.

External evidence for John:

1. Evidence from the Anti-Marcionite Prologues (c. 160 - 180 AD):

�The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books.�

Some scholars have dated these prologues to around 160 – 180 AD. The prologue to John is particularly of interest as it appeals to the authority of Papias’ writings. In other words, in his writings Papias had claimed John wrote a Gospel.


2. Evidence from the Muratorian fragment (c. 170 – 180 AD):

�The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it... For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence — as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain...�


3. Evidence from Irenaeus (lived c. 130 - 202 AD, wrote c. 180 AD):

�Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.� – Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

As mentioned we have evidence that Irenaeus met Papias who had heard John. We also have evidence that Irenaeus knew Polycarp who knew John and others who knew Jesus.

�But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.� – Against Heresies 3.3.4


4. Evidence from Theophilus of Antioch (lived c. (?) – 183 AD):

�And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,� showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.�� - To Autolycus 2.22


5. Evidence from Clement of Alexandria (lived c. 150 – 215 AD, wrote c. 195 AD):

� Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.� – as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.14.5-7


6. Evidence from Tertullian (c. 200 AD):

�We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors...Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.� – Against Marcion 4.2

"The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning." - Against Marcion 4.5


7. Evidence from Origen (lived c. 184 – 253 AD, wrote c. 230 AD):

�Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.� – as recorded by Eusebius CH 6.25.4-7


Also Mithrae had contributed the following sources supporting John’s authorship...

I should also add that in the case of John there are actually multiple clear attributions pre-dating Irenaeus, which are particularly compelling for the fact that they come from outside the 'proto-orthodox' stream of thought:
- From Heracleon, c. 170CE ("The words, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.� (John 1:18), were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.")
- From Ptolemaeus the Valentinian, as quoted by Irenaeus ("Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God. . . . And he expresses himself thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God.�")

[Mithrae]

As outlined above, gMatthew almost certainly was not written by the apostle Matthew; perhaps by a 'Matthean community' incorporating the apostle's actual sayings of Jesus/Q source into a more complete narrative, but that's pure speculation and depends on the Q hypothesis being correct (which I've leaned more towards doubting recently).

I'm not sure why you think Q is important on this point.

The two-source hypothesis and it's leading rivals are ultimately explaining how Luke ended up with much of the same material as Matthew. In the case of the two-source hypothesis, Luke got the double tradition from Q. On the Farrer or Augustinian hypotheses, Luke got it from Matthew.

But on all three hypotheses Matthew got his material (that is not in Mark) from some other source. Whether that source is (ultimately) the apostle Matthew is uncertain, of course. But that determination doesn't seem to hinge in any way on the two-source hypothesis being correct, as far as I can see.

If there were no reason to suppose the existence of a Q source (ie, Luke used Matthew), then there's basically zero reason to suppose any connection between gMatthew and the apostle; as far as we know, Irenaeus simply tagged a name from Papias onto an available gospel and others followed suit. But if there was a Q source, sharing with Papias' description the quite distinctive feature of largely being a collection of Jesus' sayings, supposing an identity between the two (or rather that Q was a Greek version of Matthew's Hebrew work) would 'solve' two minor puzzles; how is it that the church failed to preserve a genuine apostolic work (answer, it was preserved in gMatthew) and how is it that gMatthew came to be incorrectly associated with the apostle. So the Q hypothesis is the only real reason to suppose any apostolic influence in the canonical gospel, to my mind.

Luke/Acts was written sometime after 76 CE . . . But some scholars question whether the two are by the same author

This is now the second time this point has been made, and I'm honestly scratching my head as to why this idea would be highlighted in a high-level summary of New Testament authorship. To say that this is a minority position would be a massive understatement. In fact, I'm not certain it would be correct to say that 'scholars' (plural) question this. Is there any living scholar other than Patricia Walters (cited above) who holds this view?

I don't know, but given that scholars plural dispute the existence of Jesus it's a pretty safe bet I'm just outlining my own opinions and uncertainties; in this case, besides their opening sentences and a broad mirroring of themes - Luke's Jesus journeying to Jerusalem and the apostles spreading the gospel from there to ends of the earth - off the top of my head I know of no particular reason to suppose they have the same author. Shared dependence on Josephus, maybe? It's not something I've looked at much. (By contrast, the similarities in style and theme between John and 1 John seem very clear, without the overt "in my previous gospel" we might expect from a copycat, yet apparently plenty of scholars do dispute that those are by the same author.) Since speculation on the authorship of Luke depends a great deal on the 'we passages' of Acts, I figure it's an important caveat to emphasise.