Re. multiple attestation: would you elaborate on how these sources are truly independent. I’ve read comments by mythicists and others that state that all the sources actually go back to one source and that any differences in the gospel accounts can be accounted for by the theological views or the ‘agenda’ of the particular author, e.g. Matt 5:17 or Mark 3:21 (and, of course, accounted for by simple miscommunications thru’ generations).
Also, please forgive me for asking a stupid question….are there any accounts found in the gospels that pass all three criteria but which you don’t think actually happened?
Yes, once you dig deeper into the question of “independent attestation,” the trickier it gets. Technically, the term refers to sources that have not used one another for their accounts. And so, for example, whoever wrote Mark did not have access to Q, and Q did not have access to Mark; M did not have access to John’s Signs Source, and vice versa; Paul did not know Matthew and vice versa; etc. The matter gets tricky for various reasons. For one thing, we are dealing with a matter of probability, not certainty. There are scholars who would argue that Mark did indeed know Q (highly unlikely, in my vew), or that John knew the Synoptics (possible, but still unlikely, in my view); etc.
FOR MORE OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN TODAY and gain access to months of exclusive content!!