Fair point, and that fits with Marks general recognition as the earliest extant Gospel. The same logic applies to Luke with regard to Paul. However, in both cases anyone seeking to borrow from the stature of an apostle would have naturally chosen to falsely present the work as Peter or Pauls rather than merely of their scribes. If I wanted to fake a manuscript from the Kennedy White House, attributing it to JFK himself would carry far more weight than attributing it to Ted Sorensen, and I were going to lie I might as well go big. Likewise if I found someones else manuscript and wanted to present it as a historical document.


That is reasonable, but someone a century or more later scribbling a Thomas byline is no more significant than someone else scribbling a Mark or John byline.