Here’s something to ponder about human memory. What direction (north, east, west, south) did the planes hit the twin towers? What time was it? What company owned the planes? What happened to the black boxes? What Islamic denomination did the hijacker’s share? Don’t cheat, just go off of your memory (don’t google it). This was only 14 years ago and we had the benefit of TV, newspaper, etc. Jesus’ death was witnessed by fewer people and was ** you do not have permission to see this link ** before people started to write the story down – and when they did it wasn’t just his death but his entire life story.
The fact that the books are so similar in many regards proves to me that there had to at least be some editing. If these were distinct people writing their distinct stories separately, then they would be more different (IMHO). The fact is, we don’t know exactly who wrote what, it was most likely (almost certainly and reasonably accepted) not the people whom the books are attributed and it was a generation or more (40 years was the high side of the ** you do not have permission to see this link **) after the fact. The books were not written during the life of Jesus. Throw in the whole canonization process on top of that and you really have to consider what the books of the new testament really are. Now… let’s build a religion on them.
So then, my question is, do we have an idea when Q was written (if it existed)?
Statistically it’s accurate to say 40 was on the high side of life expectancy, but realistically it’s not. We’re thrown by the fact that the numbers are skewed by the high infant mortality rate. Throw out the deaths of infants and children under the age of about 2 and you get life expectencies that are closer to what we see in many countries in the world today. Maybe 50s to 60s, but I don’t precisely. The point is that while I absolutely do not think the disciple John wrote the Gospel of John I also don’t think it is unreasonable to think that more just a handful of people who knew Jesus (or at least were contemporary with Paul who was converted only a handful of years after Jesus) lived to close to the end of the 1st century.
Good point about the life expectancy. Even if they lived to 50 or 60 years old, they would have been towards the end of their life recanting stories from the “good ol’ days” something like, “the fish was THIS BIG!”. I feel that it is more than likely that they passed before the books were written. However I do not know for certain and agree that there is a possibility that they were still alive. It would be highly unlikely that they survived the ** you do not have permission to see this link **, given their potential fame. Therefore, they were either dead or close to the end of their lives when the first books were written. IMO, it doesn’t change my assertion.
dandrews216 said
Good point about the life expectancy. Even if they lived to 50 or 60 years old, they would have been towards the end of their life recanting stories from the “good ol’ days” something like, “the fish was THIS BIG!”. I feel that it is more than likely that they passed before the books were written. However I do not know for certain and agree that there is a possibility that they were still alive. It would be highly unlikely that they survived the ** you do not have permission to see this link **, given their potential fame. Therefore, they were either dead or close to the end of their lives when the first books were written. IMO, it doesn’t change my assertion.
Because there was “Editing” going on doesn’t mean none of the stories are true. It is widely believed that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark; however, they also rejected or modified some of his details and stories. Thus we can’t simply toss those sources. As Ehrman has stated they do need to be critically examined. If Mark states the fish was “this big” and one or more of the other gospels corroborate that then we have SOME Grounds to accept the fish was “this big”
highly unlikely to survive given their potential fame?
Many of America’s founding Fathers were wanted men during the American Revolution; yet Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton Madison, Franklin and Jay all survived. Highly unlikely doesn’t seem to hold up to well. Indeed, the fact that Generals fought with, if not actually leading, their troops at that time might make it seem “highly unlikely” that Washington would have survived. Throw in the fact that his men often ran away, or were beaten back by, what was then the best army, and it’s pretty much assured that he must have been captured and killed.
This is why speculation isn’t accepted as evidence and why historians use certain tests to evaluate the probability of things. In this case, Two successive presidential terms, The Whiskey Rebellion, etc give us pretty compelling evidence That Washington hadn’t been captured and killed Despite it being “highly likely”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)