Indeed he does, but this quotation from Barnabas, like all of the texts you list does not even cite the year of its writing, much less offer any evidence as to its authenticity, independent dating techniques, if it is an original or a copy, etc. This is what I meant by authentic second century document.
Jerome Biblical Commentary for one. My notes from my seminary days and other publications. In the seminary I was taught the Gospel of John by Fr. John Bruns, a widely respected Johannine scholar. Yes, biblical scholars do vary a lot in their positions. The best thing to do it read several respected scholars and come up with a general opinion. But I think the general dates of the Gospels are pretty much agreed upon by most scholars. Of course you can't put an exact date on the writing of the Gospels, but they often contain clues as to when they were written. Mark speaks of the Temple in Jerusalem as if it were still standing, which would put it before 70 A.D. Also, Mark is the shortest of the Gospels, suggesting it was the first. This is pretty much universally accepted.
I just listed the texts for quotes. Here is the background on the authors. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ Their backgrounds will contain information on when they lived and wrote. New Advent is also very good at noting where these writings were taken. Many of them come from fragments of the original some are later copies.
Does a seminary expose you to the entire spectrum of biblical research, or only those approved of by the church? I'm serious, I don't know. Agreed, Mark is probably the earliest of the surviving gospels, since Matthew and Luke both use it as a source. But there are other, still earlier sources that bible historians have determined were gospel sources since quotes from them appear in multiple gospel texts. None of these source documents these have survived. Among them may be the texts of the original authors of whom you speak. But the four modern gospels clearly synthesize and edit earlier texts. A compromise of our positions might be to say that the modern gospels are likely 4th century syntheses that evolved from 3rd and 2nd century documents, whose now-lost sources could date from as early as the late first century. i think, far too much borrowing has happened for them to be considered "eyewitness" accounts.
Well, sticking with Barnabas, they aren't even sure when he was born or died, only that he was a contemporary of Paul, much less do they state when his letter was written. But what I'm looking for is the archaeology/authenticity assessment of the original (or oldest surviving) manuscript. If they date from the 4th or 5th century, as most New Testament documents do, then much editing and later additions might be found in them. Catalogue of New Testament Papyri & Codices, 2nd—10th Centuries
We were given a pretty well-rounded view of biblical research. The Gospels were written between 65 and probably 110 A.D. They were copied many times and the various churches formed their own libraries that included the Gospels. In the 4th century they were combined, along with other writings, into the New Testament. But the Gospels that were declared canonical in the 4th century were not synthesis. They were good copies. The Gospel of John was certainly a eyewitness account. The Synoptic Gospels are far less certain in that regard. There were sources, such as the Q document, that have been lost. In addition, the Gospels themselves became sources. For example, the author of the the Gospel of Matthew certainly had a copy of Mark in front of him as he wrote his Gospel, and Luke probably did too. The three Gospels are just too similar for it to be a coincidence.
Here is a well reference article that supports my position on the accuracy of the new testament. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068
It was interesting, but he admits that there are no surviving manuscripts from before the 4th century. His evidence is still circumstantial and his conclusions are based on what seems resasonable and logical to him. He could be right, be he could be wrong. We could only prove it in the unlikely event of an authentic 1st century text being discovered. But I'll give him credit for making a valid point that the 4th through 12th century translations and transcriptions show very reasonable and expected amounts of errors and mistakes and few of the gross edits and augmentations that have long plagued Bible historians.
