re: #281 KGxvi

We know that the first gospel wasn’t written until probably 75-100 years after the death of Jesus. In that era, that’s essentially two lifetimes. So there are stories being passed on by oral tradition for quite a while before they are written down. It’s entirely likely that the story was one that was well known in the region, thus allowing (at least) four authors to write the story down. And while the four authors hit the main points, they also tell rather different stories (especially when you start considering the gnostic gospels) - it’s similar to fan fiction, or stories that have fallen into the public domain today and have been reworked. Also, keep in mind that this was an era when people still believed in divine revelation (and some likely would still have believed the gods walked among us), so accepting the existence of this demigod wouldn’t necessarily be difficult for them.

I simply find it hard to believe that, as dedicated as the Romans were to recording things that happened on their watch, that we find no solid evidence of a rebel rouser like Jesus - while we have evidence of Spartacus.

Actually, the best historians say that the gospel of Mark can be dated pretty close to 70, which puts it within 40 years of Jesus’ life. Matthew and Luke were written in the 80s. John is considered very late, probably close to 100.

And John is very, very different from Mark, Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke relied on Mark, and used another source, a sayings gospel called “Q”. John came from somewhere else. Really, John is very different from the Synoptics in so many ways.

This, by the way, is standard first semester History of the New Testament stuff that you’d get at university, like I did about 35 years ago. The outlines haven’t changed much since then. The details, yeah, somewhat.