Indeed, this really isn’ a great forum for discussion. And sharing a cup of coffee for arguing is far better approach. I suspect we’d actually have a good and friendly time. (Indeed, we’d probably have a lot of things we would agree on).

Ok, this is my last “chiming in”-- you can rebut if you’d like, but I’ll stop with this.

Most scholars I’ve seen agree that Paul is using the rabbinic practice of midrash. But I won’t get into that. Especially since my expertise is not in Hebrew midrash.

I’ll stick with scholars like Levine, Wright, Segal, et al about the rabbinic qualifications of Paul--as I mentioned two of those authors are not Christian, but Jewish with higher qualifications that I suspect either of us (but I won’t make that assumption about you, since I don’t know your degree).

If you have not read Wright, I highly recommend him. Even though you may not agree with his conclusions, it would be a worthwhile exercise--he is both a classic historian and theologian. Also, I’d recommend Gregory Boyd. However, remember both Wright and Boyd are pretty dense in their academic writing (Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Wright and The Crucifixion of the Warrior God-Boyd: both are two volume works).

I still insist you have redefined forgery. And since we cannot read the early church fathers’ minds, we should not presume to judge their motivations.

There is no definitive proof that the early writers like Papias and Irenaeus were wrong in attributing the gospels to Matthew (apostle), Mark (not an apostle), Luke (not an apostle), and John, the elder (perhaps an apostle, perhaps not).

I would say that if trying to bolster the authority of these texts was the purpose of attributing them to these authors--why Mark and Luke? Why not Peter and Paul? That would make the most sense. Peter would have made a great candidate for Mark’s authorship if I were going to just make it up to give credibility. There is a reason why they didn’t-- perhaps because the early church fathers did not decide who wrote them, but accepted what the general belief and consensus was among most Christians--which points to the authenticity.

Let me reiterate, I don’t have to believe these are authored by these writers since they are not internally attributed--but that doesn’t make anyone dishonest when they say “Matthew said” or “Mark said” -- that’s just the common way of referencing the materials. I suspect most scholars reference those writings this way informally when not writing academic papers.

But, again, to definitively claim they certainly did not write these texts is saying more than either you or I could possibly know.

We all tend to believe what makes the most sense to us given the evidence before us. I am not particularly vested in “proving” you wrong or “proving” me right (as if I could definitively do such--I cannot). But I didn’t want to just ignore what you wrote without at least giving a different perspective.

And if I may give a friendly jab to your original post. Logical fallacy: begging the question. “Honest scholars” say that Matthew, et al did not write the gospels? That’s like saying:

“Only good drivers drive with their hands in the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock positions."

“Well, I drive in the 9 and 3 position"

“Then you’re not a good driver."

Circular reasoning. 😎