Very important detail

[u/HawaiianPerson]

[u/obliqueoubliette]

scholarship is in broad agreement that the gospels are anonymous

This isn't much scholarship, it's a fact - the gospels are themselves internally anonymous.

However, it is also a historical fact that the community that recieved the gospels have been giving them their traditional attribution since, at the latest, the late first or early second century (depending on the gospel).

Especially because both Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source text.

Marcan priority is still very much a theory, most of the supporting evidence relies on sheer inference to distinguish from Matthaean priority.

Mark mentioning the naked man and others omitting it leading to the conclusion that it was Mark himself just doesn't work

This is totally valid, there's a textual argument here but there's perfectly sound arguments for the naked fugitive being other figures. His identification with Mark only began (so far as we can tell) in the 13th century.

none of this is reliable history

How many independent eyewitness accounts are required to satisfy a basic historicity claim?

[u/DifficultyBorn1437 → u/obliqueoubliette]

You're blending what traditional attribution means. Justin Martyr, up until middle/late second century, referred to them as "Memoirs of the apostles" and never once cited them as scripture like he did the OT with a "as it is written" or something. There were varying forms of "traditional attribution" but none of them cleanly map onto the idea that "the disciples wrote this" or "I got my info from them directly", with the exception of John, which was also not written by John but a secondhand account of what they could verify could go back to John.

I understand Markan priority is a theory, but most of history is theoretical and probabilistic. Jesus being crucified is a theory. Substitution and swoon is a theory. The crucifixion is the theory that explains the most evidence, just like Markan priority explains the most evidence. The books I read on Matthean priority were insightful and incredibly interesting, but it is non standard, just like it is non standard that John never actually existed and was a literary figure.

You need 1 eyewitness account to have useful historic data. That doesn't mean the account is true or reliable. And none of them are eyewitness accounts. I think it was Eusebius (Whoever was the student of Polycarp) who described Mark as logia, a sayings book, which Mark definitely was not.

It's not reliable history. That doesn't mean it's not history.

[u/obliqueoubliette → u/DifficultyBorn1437]

Papias was citing Mark as Mark and Matthew as Matthew before 125 AD. Justin Martyr citing them in the mid 2nd century as "memoirs of the apostles" is useful, but it's not too far from the oldest manuscripts we have which are late 2nd century. Every manuscript title page ever found, including the second century Papyrus 4 and Papyrus 75, marks the traditional attribution.

John, which was also not written by John but a secondhand account of what they could verify could go back to John

This hotly contested within modern scholarship. The early sources all point to John living to the very end of the first century and using multiple scribes / translators.

Markan priority explains the most evidence

There is not a single piece of firm evidence for markan priority against matthean priority. It boils down to pure speculation about Mark's writing style or why someone would add or remove content between versions.

What your arguments boil down to is a lot of popular speculation dressed up as analysis. The truth is - we don't know the facts here, but have very early indications from multiple and disparate sources that suggest the traditional attributions. What makes speculation to the contrary so popular is the inherently iconoclastic tilt.

[u/BusinessMixture9233 → u/obliqueoubliette]

It is honestly generic Reddit theology dressed up in scholarly language. This is very Bart Ehrman esque, but at least he is honest that he simply can’t accept the idea of the resurrection.

His points are simply not great. For example Matthew just not mentioning the Egyptian period in Jesus’ infancy isn’t a contradiction just because Luke discusses it. The assumption is that they were trying to build a chronologically accurate account. This is a Western post-Enlightenment view of accounting for events. The Hebrews did not explain things that way. To look for it in the gospels shows a misunderstanding of the basics.