John was, let's say 16 at the time of Jesus' crucifixion in 33 AD, then he'd be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Ahh yes, let's make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative...
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
"I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe."
You've got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that's pretty damn close.
Eusebius's argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it's widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that's more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Then there's Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king's journal.
You're the one working off of assumptions
You're claiming the new testament that the new testament didn't first get passed down by oral tradition?
So you're basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn't believe it happened?
No, just saying that you can't use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you'll just cry "Christian interpolation", while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn't have written about it because "someone can't rise from the dead".
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
We'd have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone..... Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?
I'm saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It's not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.