> but to disregard a highly cited book because of an obtuse introduction
I disregarded it not because of the odd style, but because it used dishonest reasoning. It's been a year and I don't have it in front of me, but the bit that finally did in the book for me was both an acknowledgement that the authors of the first 4 books of the NT are anonymous... but that he accepts that they must be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John anyway, without actually backing that up with evidence.
I flipped through the rest of the book, and noticed that while the book was supposed to be a "courtroom trial," I didn't see any interviews with those holding contrary views. Lots of time spent on interviewing those who agreed with his assessment, but where were the critics? Where were the scholars from the "Jesus Seminar?" I don't recall seeing them. Given the vast number of other books I have to read, I decided to put that work aside and read something less... dishonest.
The point of the book was that Strobel was the skeptic. He challenged these experts with commonly held notions and got his answers. Strobel presents the arguments of the skeptics by citing them. One of those skeptical groups he cites is the Jesus Seminar. In fact, a large part of one interview is about the Jesus Seminar!
There is at least one book that attempted to rebuttal it, but that book is out of print on even Amazon.com. I think that reveals something about its validity.
With respect, you did not read enough of the book if you think Strobel or one of his expert witnesses acknowledged the Gospels were written by anonymous sources. They specifically state the 3 weren't anonymous (Matt, Mark, Luke) and that John was probably (by historical standards) written by a student of John who was citing John in many instances (much like Luke and Peter).
If you are really passionate about this topic--which it seems you are because you comment on it--perhaps you could put this book near the top of your reading list. It directly addresses a lot of what you've said here.
Or you can continue on making claims for which there are already reasonable answers for.
I know that Pascal's Wager brings up negative emotions, but I think it has overall validity. If we can find the Truth to a standard we use for other decisions (EX the rule of law), then we should endeaver to. The consequences of complacency can be infinitely greater than the benefits of living for yourself.
It is believed Theophilus of Antioch penned those books as were dictated by the apostles. In fact, Theophilus is accredited twice, once in Luke and once in Acts, with having been given the charge of penning the Gospel of Luke - possibly more - and the Acts of the Apostles.
Strobel's statement is comparable to my having had quoted a private message from you, however others would have no credible proof you've actually written the piece I've quoted. Therefore, from that premis, one would need assume my quote factually credible or further discourse upon the matter is improbable.