| Not isn't. Sorry but this is just a highly inaccurate statement. The gospel are absolutely not eyewitness accounts. Not sure if you learned that in Church or something, this is very much not what any scholar of those text believes. Even the 'scholars' in religious fundamentalist schools mostly don't agree with that. The gospel were not written by the people in the title, the titles were not even in any of the older scrolls, titles like 'Gospel of Mark' were later additions. And they are also not independent documents either. They are very clearly written with knowlage of one another. Mark is the template for all of them. Matthew previously thought to be independent is increasingly seen as Mark with some additional stuff insert into it. Luke clearly had both Mark and Matthew to work with and basically tried to make a fusion. John is clearly much considerably later and clearly had the other three. The only documents that are in reasonable living memory of a potential Jesus are the non-fake letters of Paul (most of them are not by Paul). And Paul himself even says that hadn't met Jesus (outside of visions) and Paul letters also don't give us much that matters in terms the historical accuracy of what went on in the region as he wasn't there. And don't believe the 'Acts of the Apostles' in the bible those are even less historical then the gospels. |