Those letters, even at the time the Bible was compiled - about 400 AD, were nearly not included due to doubts about their authenticity.

We absolutely know for sure that those books weren't written by the 'names' used - we just know that none of the authors identified themselves, or cited any sources - and were written 40-100 years after the events they claim to detail.

Everyone also agrees Luke-Acts is written by the same person, and that Acts shifts to a first-person perspective during the account of Paul’s journeys.

It’s not currently in fashion to think they were written by their the people they are named after, but it’s not implausible; the strongest argument for later dating of the gospels is simply that they all are perceived to clearly prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem, which did occur circa 70AD. But there’s no particular reason, even from a secular perspective, to assume this wasn’t just a reasonable guess about the future given past history and the contemporary political environment. Also, it seems relevant that our earliest sources given them those credits.

Book of Luke / (some of) Acts - yes, probably the same person, traditionally thought to be a physician friend of Paul / Saul, but again, no authorship provided or sources cited, so we don't really know.

So much in the NT was written to satisfy various OT prophecies that it can all feel a bit contrived - but again, AIUI, the writings in 'Mark' (the first of the four) strongly suggest post-70CE, but perhaps much later.

I suppose anything is 'not implausible' if you're inclined in a certain direction.

We know the "disciple who Jesus loved" is John from John, and in the last chapter, the book is explicitly attributed to him as "the one who testifies of these things and wrote them down", in the typical third-person way of this sort of literature.

If you care what other people close in time thought, we know that for example, Clement of Alexandria believed this based on tradition as well. Of course, we can suspend judgement: we have no way of knowing. But in the absence of clear contradictory evidence, I don't think it's unreasonable to rest on the side of "whatever the text and the closest contemporaries we have thought."

> sources cited,

What do you mean by this?

> AIUI, the writings in 'Mark' (the first of the four) strongly suggest post-70CE, but perhaps much later.

This argument rests entirely on what I alluded to earlier. As I mentioned, from a purely secular perspective, it isn't surprising that someone could guess that Jerusalem would someday be destroyed. It happened many times before! On top of this, the political situation was delicate, and very similar to the last time Jerusalem had been destroyed. But setting all that aside:

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-13/

Read this and tell me if this is a clear, definite allusion to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70, or a vague handwavy prophecy about "Bad Things Will Happen and the Temple will be destroyed".

Eventually. If anything, it's very confused, since if you assume the passage is talking about the 70AD war, it's clearly also being mixed up with the actual end of the world. It seems just as likely as vague statements that could easily be fit into later actual events. The Greek world was certainly absolutely rife with these things. No doubt it helped the Christians to point to a vague "prophecy" and say "see, we told you!" and helped its spread, which in turn made it more likely for the text to survive to present day.

Historiography is not really an exact science, and it's very fad-driven. The academic consensus goes back and forth over time, depending on what's in fashion and who has died. That’s why relatively unsurprising archeological finds often result in major historiographical shifts.

Clement - a religious (read indoctrinated and partisan) person born 120 years after Jesus was meant to have died, is neither 'close in time' nor relevant.

We have plenty of historical works from the actual time about other things where authors identified themselves, cited their sources, did not obfuscate their meanings, etc - so it's not like that skill was unknown. As you say, 'literature' is an apt word for these stories.

As to before / after 70 CE, I guess we'll have to move on from there also, as I don't have a horse in that race.

I'm not saying the book is written by John. In fact, I'm saying it's unknowable. What I'm doing is laying out the arguments for and against:

For: The book internally claims to be written by John, and very early authors claim to have been told that traditionally.

Against: John was the latest of the Gospels, and since John was written last based on it's style and on the traditional commentary, and since Mark was written after 70AD because we think it alludes to the Siege of Jerusalem, and because we're told in Acts that John wasn't particularly scholarly, John could not have been written by John because he was most likely dead by the time it was written and he wasn't sufficiently scholarly.

You can see that neither one of these are logical proofs. That's the nature of this type of historiography. There's nothing even close to proof. Consensus, such as it is, is just based on the opinions of the current people in the field, who have to publish or perish (thus we're subjected to papers like "Xenophon couldn't have been at the battle of Cunaxa because his description of Cyrus's head wound differs very slightly from the doctor's"). "Everyone was right" is not publishable, so the debate goes on forever and the fashion changes. Of course some arguments can be stronger than others! For example, a common type of argument goes like this:

Passage X is an interpolation. It exists in tons of the later texts we have, but none of the earlier ones.

This is a probabilistic argument: we can never be certain. It could be the case that Passage X was included in the original manuscript, but that an early, popular copyist elided the passage and his copy spawned many others. But this is how it all goes. We're not making certain arguments. It's really more of a persuasive sport. Assuming you have read a given text carefully and are reasonably well-informed on contemporary history, there is no particular reason you have to accept the current consensus. It isn't based on super obscure expert knowledge. If as a layman, you (reasonably!) want to just accept the current academic consensus, that's fine! It's just important to understand what it is actually based on, and that it doesn't constitute anything close to knowledge or certainty.

> As to before / after 70 CE, I guess we'll have to move on from there also, as I don't have a horse in that race.

That's actually a very important point for the dating of the gospels, which is in turn a major point in the authorship debate.

> Clement - a religious (read indoctrinated and partisan) person born 120 years after Jesus was meant to have died, is neither 'close in time' nor relevant.

Unless you know anyone closer in time and nonpartisan, people like him and Irenaeus are all we've got. And that's typical. Disinterested parties don't usually write popular surviving historical works. This is reminiscent of a popular line of historiography: X isn't true because the author was motivated to believe it. Of course this is always possible but it's a very tiresome argument in the absence of some other evidence.

If Christianity, specifically, gets more criticism it's because this is a forum of primarily Western, thus more likely Christian, users.

> Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Ephesians 6:5-9, NIV)

So yes, Paul doesn't rail against slavery and insist that it must be torn down. But the simple fact is that slavery was a fact of life in Paul's day, and he had to deal with the world as it was. Thus he focused his advice on the reality of the situation, not engaging in a vain struggle to overturn the order of society in one step. Even the command to treat your slaves well because you will answer to God would have been a significant change in Paul's day. Progress is made one step at a time, and it's not just to blame Paul for doing the best he could in the conditions of his day.

And, frankly, his advice to slaves is good advice. As the ancient Stoics recognized, the only thing you can control is your own response to the situation life places you in. If you're a slave, that isn't ideal, but you can and should conduct yourself with integrity even in such a situation. That doesn't mean you shouldn't hope to be in a better place someday, but in the meantime do the best you can where you are. That's great advice that everyone should follow.

> Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present herself as the radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each of you must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33 NIV)

Notice that this is far more than a one-sided "women must listen to their husbands" that it is often portrayed as. Expectations are placed upon both parties, and by far the larger obligation is placed on the husband. He is commanded to "love [his] wife just as Christ loved the church", and Christ loved the church so much that he died for it. Thus husbands are expected to be completely and utterly self-sacrificing for the good of their wives, even to the point of death if necessary. That is no small obligation, needless to say. Even if one doesn't like traditional gender roles, it is disingenuous to portray this verse as some kind of misogynistic oppression of women. In fact men have huge obligations of service and sacrifice placed upon them, in Paul's teaching.

Which isn't adequately far from "shut up and get over yourself", from my perspective.

Weird how this only applies to slavery, though. For every other aspect of life, Christians aren't expected to simply accept the evils of the world as immutable and unchangeable.

>And, frankly, his advice to slaves is good advice.

No, it isn't. The only good advice for slaves is to cut the throat of their master and be free as soon as possible.

>Notice that this is far more than a one-sided "women must listen to their husbands" that it is often portrayed as.

It is very much that, according to 1 Timothy:

    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

It has literally been the basis for the misogynistic oppression of women for more than a thousand years.

That's just fact. You can spin it any way you like, but the purpose of a system is what it does, and violence against women is what these verses do.

When it comes to authority structures, the approach (both in the Pauline corpus and elsewhere in the NT) is pretty consistent, slavery isn't treated any differently than secular political authority generally.