Gospel Witnesses to History
K C
unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
We have witnesses of the life of Jesus in the books of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. They are either A> eyewitness accounts or B> a
collection of eyewitness reports, depending on which book you are
talking about.
Now, some people have made up charges that these books are distortions
of the truth or that the books were modified over time. However, no
proof of this charge has been offered. The other side doesn't have
any original document of the gospels to back up charges of
modifications of the documents.
In regards to history, this is not enough to keep the gospels from
being history. Without proof, it is the practice of historians to
believe the original reports that they do have at the time.
Now, not too long ago, a charge was made up that mankind never set
foot on the moon, suggesting it was all made up in a film lab. No
proof of the charges was produced, and the history books still say we
went to the moon. What if we treated the moon landing like the
gospels? What if we said, "Oh, well, some suggest the original
documents and tapes of the event were staged, so we can't say it
definitely happened." How do you think that would go over?
However, many "historians" have no problem leaving the eyewitness
accounts of the gospels, and the indirect reports of the church that
maintained those documents, as being facts simply because some people
don't want it to be true. That is not history but historical
doctoring for a personal cause, and no historian should be among those
doing it.
http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
(30 Days of Providence)
Bob LeChevalier
>In a court room, a witness testimony carries enough weight to convict
>unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
>
>We have witnesses of the life of Jesus in the books of Matthew, Mark,
>Luke, and John.
We have no evidence that those books were written by eyewitness.
>They are either A> eyewitness accounts or B> a
>collection of eyewitness reports, depending on which book you are
>talking about.
Or they could have been made up stories written down 30-60 years after
some unknown's death for the purpose of making him larger than life,
and defending a religion created by one Paul, that was under assault
from the Roman emperor.
>Now, some people have made up charges that these books are distortions
>of the truth or that the books were modified over time. However, no
>proof of this charge has been offered.
Nor is there proof in the other direction.
There are lots of cases in history of ancient books being altered.
There are lots of cases of stories being written down for purposes
other than the objective recording of history. There are NO cases of
any histories written before modern times that weren't severely
distorted by the limited information available to the writer.
>The other side doesn't have
>any original document of the gospels to back up charges of
>modifications of the documents.
Likewise there is no original document of the gospels to prove that
they were written any time before 300 AD. (There are quotes of
significant portions of the books from before that time, but no actual
copies of the books. General consensus of historians is that the
gospels were probably written between 60AD and 100 AD. The odds are
strongly against many contemporaries of Christ still being around at
the end of that period, and even in 60AD, most were dead (the average
lifespan in those days was 30-35 years).
>In regards to history, this is not enough to keep the gospels from
>being history.
You have things backwards. The assumption is that they are NOT
history until proven to be history.
> Without proof, it is the practice of historians to
>believe the original reports that they do have at the time.
We have no original reports. The earliest dated possible reference to
Christ is in a Roman document from 48AD, and it is quite ambiguous.
>Now, not too long ago, a charge was made up that mankind never set
>foot on the moon, suggesting it was all made up in a film lab. No
>proof of the charges was produced, and the history books still say we
>went to the moon.
Because we have plenty of corroborating evidence, and the people who
actually took the footsteps to crossexamine.
>What if we treated the moon landing like the
>gospels? What if we said, "Oh, well, some suggest the original
>documents and tapes of the event were staged, so we can't say it
>definitely happened." How do you think that would go over?
It wouldn't, because the two situations have little in common.
>However, many "historians" have no problem leaving the eyewitness
>accounts of the gospels,
There are none.
>and the indirect reports of the church that maintained those documents,
There was no church that maintained those documents until around 320
AD.
>as being facts simply because some people
>don't want it to be true. That is not history but historical
>doctoring for a personal cause, and no historian should be among those
>doing it.
I suggest that you learn something about the methods of history. You
merely look foolish.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Byron Canfield
news:e88a6c8b.04033...@posting.google.com...
> In a court room, a witness testimony carries enough weight to convict
> unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
>
> We have witnesses of the life of Jesus in the books of Matthew, Mark,
> Luke, and John. They are either A> eyewitness accounts or B> a
> collection of eyewitness reports, depending on which book you are
> talking about.
Actually, historical evidence abounds that the first versions of those
accounts were not written until long after the deaths of the supposed
witnesses, ergo, they are NOT eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay of the
most removed sort.
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Byron Canfield
> unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
>
> We have witnesses of the life of Jesus in the books of Matthew, Mark,
> Luke, and John. They are either A> eyewitness accounts or B> a
> collection of eyewitness reports, depending on which book you are
> talking about.
>
those of other myths that predate christianity by thousands of years -- only
the names and minor details have changed. This is nothing more than just
another case of a power-hungry priesthood siezing on the myths of another
culture and twisting them to support their own power base.
Gray Shockley
> In a court room, a witness testimony carries enough weight to convict
> unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
Wrong, KlanBoy.
The phrase is "beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt".
When I was in the 12th grade, one of the English classes was in session and
someone was giving a book report at, of course, the front of the room when a
deranged student came running in and stabbed and killed the student with a
large knife. The slayer fleed and two students picked up the body to get it
out front for the ambulance even though - quite obviously - the student was
already dead.
The teacher - knowing that the details of the crime would be important - told
the students to write down the attack in as min'ute detail as possible.
And - as the descriptions of this horrible crime were collected by the
teacher - the killer walked into the room and asked, "Miss Aarons, would you
like for me to take those descriptions down to the parking lot?"
And she said, "No", and then the dead guy was forced to finish his book
report and no police ever showed up.
And she collected the 28 different desciptions of the killing knife: the lock
blade, the Boy Scout knife, the switchblade, the machete, the kitchen knife,
the scythe.
The only problem was that it had been a banana.
K C
> "K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e88a6c8b.04033...@posting.google.com...
> > In a court room, a witness testimony carries enough weight to convict
> > unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
> >
> > We have witnesses of the life of Jesus in the books of Matthew, Mark,
> > Luke, and John. They are either A> eyewitness accounts or B> a
> > collection of eyewitness reports, depending on which book you are
> > talking about.
>
> Actually, historical evidence abounds that the first versions of those
> accounts were not written until long after the deaths of the supposed
> witnesses, ergo, they are NOT eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay of the
> most removed sort.
What EVIDENCE? In order to prove they were altered, you'd need the
original versions, which you do not have. This just shows your side's
desire to depart from truth at the drop of the hate, just to make a
political point. Your side has been altering history for a long time
to suit your purposes. Why should the first century be any different?
Byron Canfield
What are you ranting about? What "side"? You have made the extraordinary
claim that the bible constitutes evidence as an eye-witness account. It is
YOU that must supply evidence to support the extraordinary claim. It is
christians who have been altering history to suit their purposes, the more
recent examples of which are things such as Easter, originally a pagan
holiday of spring, which the christian church couldn't stamp out so they
made it a religious day, and Christmas, originally a pagan holiday
commemorating the winter soltice.
And it is YOU demonstrating hate towards anyone who denies your
extraordinary claims -- a hatred that is rather un-christian-like, I might
add. Perhaps you should turn off the computer and go read your bible and
contemplate your OWN sins before you attempt "remove the speck from the eye
of another."
Circe
> The odds are strongly against many contemporaries of Christ still
> being around at the end of that period, and even in 60AD, most were
> dead (the average lifespan in those days was 30-35 years).
>
did not routinely die at 30-35 years of age. They certainly were not
considered old and people who died in the 30s, 40s, and even 50s were
considered to have died "too young". The reason you get an average lifespan
of 30-35 years isn't because people normally dropped dead at that age, but
because infant and childhood mortality was *extremely* high, there was
considerably more mortality in adulthood due to childbirth and accidents,
and, of course, more people did die to illness in adulthood than do now
because there were neither antibiotics or vaccines. Still, it's mostly the
infant/childhood deaths that skew the statistics so that the average comes
out at 30-35. People in ancient times *expected* to live to a ripe old age
provided they reached adulthood. People didn't expect to die in their 30s
any more than we do. And plenty of people lived to nice old ages--who knows
how long Socrates (as one example) would have gone on had he not been made
to drink hemlock).
So, while I'm far from convinced that any of the gospels were written by
people who actually knew Jesus, the 30-year gap between his death and the
writings of the gospels is not a reason to assume that they could not have
been. I'm quite sure that a fairly decent proportion of people who were
25-30 when Jesus was executed were still alive 30 (and even 40) years later.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)
All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|In a court room, a witness testimony carries enough weight to convict
>:|
The Bible is not an established proven authority While it is historically
accurate about sOME things it is historically inaccurate about other
things.
I believe that while Thomas Paine's Age of Reason was very upsetting to
many of that era, I am not sure anyone has ever accurately and effectively
replied to the many questions he raised to the flaws he pointed out found
in the Bible with those two parts of Age of Reason.
AGE OF REASON PART 1
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html
AGE OF REASON PART 2
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/Age-Of-Reason-Part-2.html
Both parts point out many of the flaws with the Bible, including the fact
that the author or authors of many of the first books of the Bible is/are
unknown.
What credentials did he or they have?
Very few Christian denominations, sects, etc claim infallibility for the
Bible anymore. Thus they recognize the fact that at best the Bible can be
a guide in some areas, in some things, but few claim it is to be accepted,
followed, etc word for word.
You don't get to claim the Bible as the authority on this matter since you
pick and choose that which you want to follow, or accept or cite or quote
and ignore the other items that would put a real crimp in your style of
living etc.
AND FINALLY:
From: UP_i...@webtv.net (Up in NH)
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.education,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.republicans,alt.politics.republican
Subject: For CB, DPR, KRP, Dana, Strickland & Fundy Jihad
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:18:46 -0500 (EST)
AS RABBIS FACE FACTS, BIBLE TALES ARE WILTING
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/arts/09BIBL.html?ex=1076821200&en=8af184d621d3d7cd&ei=5070
March 9, 2002
By MICHAEL MASSING
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses.
The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never
occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And
David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a
mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was
later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions — the product of findings by
archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years
— have gained wide acceptance among non- Orthodox rabbis. But there
has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with
the laity — until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5
million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new
Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years.
Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an
interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology,
philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the
editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts
ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a
human rather than divine document.
"When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about
anything," said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of "When Bad Things
Happen to Good People" and a co-editor of the new book.
"Today, they are very sophisticated and well read about psychology,
literature and history, but they are locked in a childish version of the
Bible."
"Etz Hayim," compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in
Los Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a
parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the
author of "The Chosen"), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries
on Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and
scholars on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to
ecology and eschatology.
These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at
Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance,
an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology," by Robert Wexler, president
of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of
modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis
originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in
Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the
Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably
borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.
Equally striking for many readers will be the essay "Biblical
Archaeology," by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem. "There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's
sojourn in that country," he writes, "and the evidence that does exist
is negligible and indirect." The few indirect pieces of evidence, like
the use of Egyptian names, he adds, "are far from adequate to
corroborate the historicity of the biblical account."
Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest
and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including
Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited,
he says, "clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest
portrayed in the Book of Joshua." What's more, he says, there is an
"almost total absence of archaeological evidence" backing up the Bible's
grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled
and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a
rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim."
But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it."
Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi
Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees
"that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it
happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a
"litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions,
improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating
evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have
"found no trace of the tribes of Israel — not one shard of pottery."
The reaction to the rabbi's talk ranged from admiration at his courage
to dismay at his timing to anger at his audacity. Reported in Jewish
publications around the world, the sermon brought him a flood of letters
accusing him of undermining the most fundamental teachings of Judaism.
But he also received many messages of support. "I can't tell you how
many rabbis called me, e- mailed me and wrote me, saying, `God bless you
for saying what we all believe,´ " Rabbi Wolpe said. He attributes the
"explosion" set off by his sermon to "the reluctance of rabbis to say
what they really believe."
Before the introduction of "Etz Hayim," the Conservative movement relied
on the Torah commentary of Joseph Hertz, the chief rabbi of the British
Commonwealth. By 1936, when it was issued, the Hebrew Bible had come
under intense scrutiny from scholars like Julius Wellhausen of Germany,
who raised many questions about the text's authorship and accuracy.
Hertz, working in an era of rampant anti-Semitism and of Christian
efforts to demonstrate the inferiority of the "Old" Testament to the
"New," dismissed all doubts about the integrity of the text.
Maintaining that no people would have invented for themselves so
"disgraceful" a past as that of being slaves in a foreign land, he wrote
that "of all Oriental chronicles, it is only the Biblical annals that
deserve the name of history."
The Hertz approach had little competition until 1981, when the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, the official arm of Reform Judaism,
published its own Torah commentary. Edited by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, it
took note of the growing body of archaeological and textual evidence
that called the accuracy of the biblical account into question. The
"tales" of Genesis, it flatly stated, were a mix of "myth, legend,
distant memory and search for origins, bound together by the strands of
a central theological concept." But Exodus, it insisted, belonged in
"the realm of history." While there are scholars who consider the Exodus
story to be "folk tales," the commentary observed, "this is a minority
view."
Twenty years later, the weight of scholarly evidence questioning the
Exodus narrative had become so great that the minority view had become
the majority one.
Not among Orthodox Jews, however. They continue to regard the Torah as
the divine and immutable word of God. Their most widely used Torah
commentary, known as the Stone Edition (1993), declares in its
introduction "that every letter and word of the Torah was given to Moses
by God."
Lawrence Schiffman, a professor at New York University and an Orthodox
Jew, said that "Etz Hayim" goes so far in accepting modern scholarship
that, without realizing it, it ends up being in "nihilistic opposition"
to what Conservative Jews stand for. He noted, however, that most of the
questions about the Bible's accuracy had been tucked away discreetly in
the back. "The average synagogue-goer is never going to look there," he
said.
Even some Conservative rabbis feel uncomfortable with the depth of the
doubting. "I think the basic historicity of the text is valid and
verifiable," said Susan Grossman, the rabbi of Beth Shalom Congregation
in Columbia, Md., and a co-editor of "Etz Hayim." As for the mounting
archaeological evidence suggesting the contrary, Rabbi Grossman said:
"There's no evidence that it didn't happen. Most of the `evidence´ is
evidence from silence."
"The real issue for me is the eternal truths that are in the text," she
added. "How do we apply this hallowed text to the 21st century?" One
way, she said, is to make it more relevant to women. Rabbi Grossman is
one of many women who worked on "Etz Hayim," in an effort to temper the
Bible's heavily patriarchal orientation and make the text more palatable
to modern readers. For example, the passage in Genesis that describes
how the aged Sarah laughed upon hearing God say that she would bear a
son is traditionally interpreted as a laugh of incredulity. In its
commentary, however, "Etz Hayim" suggests that her laughter "may not be
a response to the far- fetched notion of pregnancy at an advanced age,
but the laughter of delight at the prospect of two elderly people
resuming marital intimacy."
In a project of such complexity, there were inevitably many points of
disagreement. But Rabbi Kushner says the only one that eluded resolution
concerned Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a
woman; it is an abhorrence." "We couldn't come to a formulation that we
could all be comfortable with," the rabbi said. "Some people felt that
homosexuality is wrong. We weren't prepared to embrace that as the
Conservative position. But at the same time we couldn't say this is a
mentality that has been disproved by contemporary biology, for not
everyone was prepared to go along with that." Ultimately, the editors
settled on an anodyne compromise, noting that the Torah's prohibitions
on homosexual relations "have engendered considerable debate" and that
Conservative synagogues should "welcome gay and lesbian congregants in
all congregational activities."
Since the fall, when "Etz Hayim" was issued, more than 100,000 copies
have been sold. Eventually, it is expected to become the standard Bible
in the nation's 760 Conservative synagogues.
Mark S. Smith, a professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies at New York
University, noted that the Hertz commentary had lasted 65 years. "That's
incredible," he said. "If `Etz Hayim´ isn´t around for 50 years or
more, I´d be surprised."
Its longevity, however, may depend on the pace of archaeological
discovery.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|What EVIDENCE? In order to prove they were altered, you'd need the
>:|original versions, which you do not have. This just shows your side's
>:|desire to depart from truth at the drop of the hate, just to make a
>:|political point. Your side has been altering history for a long time
>:|to suit your purposes. Why should the first century be any different?
Thought you would enver ask
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> The odds are strongly against many contemporaries of Christ still
>> being around at the end of that period, and even in 60AD, most were
>> dead (the average lifespan in those days was 30-35 years).
>>
>Okay, I'm going to have to take issue with this. People in the ancient world
>did not routinely die at 30-35 years of age.
I believe that you are incorrect in this.
>They certainly were not considered old
In their 30s, no. In their 40s, perhaps.
>and people who died in the 30s, 40s, and even 50s were
>considered to have died "too young".
Evidence?
>The reason you get an average lifespan
>of 30-35 years isn't because people normally dropped dead at that age, but
>because infant and childhood mortality was *extremely* high,
Around 30%, from what I can tell. That would cut 30% off an average
of 70 years, perhaps from 75 to 55. But to get from the 50s to the
20s and 30s takes significant levels of young adult mortality, like we
are seeing in the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
Here is one model for the Roman empire.
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
Life expectancy at birth was only 25. Those who made it to age 20, on
average lived to 54.
>there was
>considerably more mortality in adulthood due to childbirth and accidents,
>and, of course, more people did die to illness in adulthood than do now
>because there were neither antibiotics or vaccines. Still, it's mostly the
>infant/childhood deaths that skew the statistics so that the average comes
>out at 30-35. People in ancient times *expected* to live to a ripe old age
>provided they reached adulthood.
I don't think so. It happened, but it took luck and a safe
profession.
>People didn't expect to die in their 30s
>any more than we do. And plenty of people lived to nice old ages--who knows
>how long Socrates (as one example) would have gone on had he not been made
>to drink hemlock).
>
>So, while I'm far from convinced that any of the gospels were written by
>people who actually knew Jesus, the 30-year gap between his death and the
>writings of the gospels is not a reason to assume that they could not have
>been. I'm quite sure that a fairly decent proportion of people who were
>25-30 when Jesus was executed were still alive 30 (and even 40) years later.
I'm sure that many were. From the table, half of 20 year-olds were
dead by 54. Half of 54 year olds lived to 68-69. Thus we would
expect that on average only around 3 of the 12 apostles would have
been still alive by 70 AD,which is around the earliest plausible date
for the gospels. (The hypothetical Q document of Jesus's sayings
might have been ten years earlier than the first gospel).
But now add to this the fact that literacy among the lower classes was
quite low (and most of the apostles were from lower-class
backgrounds), and we should expect few first-person accounts. Indeed
Mark and Luke were NOT themselves on the list of apostles, and while
John is the name of a couple of apostles, few scholars believe that
the namesake for the book was one of those.
The collected impression is that the gospels are not eyewitness
accounts by people who knew Jesus, but 1st or 2nd hearsay accounts by
people who came to follow Christ in the first years after He died,
their impressions increasingly colored by Pauline theology (John is
believed to be the last of the 4 gospels written).
Bob LeChevalier
>"Byron Canfield" <barnN...@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message news:<3TNac.152014$_w.1703407@attbi_s53>...
>> "K C" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e88a6c8b.04033...@posting.google.com...
>> > In a court room, a witness testimony carries enough weight to convict
>> > unless the other side can prove the testimony was a lie.
>> >
>> > We have witnesses of the life of Jesus in the books of Matthew, Mark,
>> > Luke, and John. They are either A> eyewitness accounts or B> a
>> > collection of eyewitness reports, depending on which book you are
>> > talking about.
>>
>> Actually, historical evidence abounds that the first versions of those
>> accounts were not written until long after the deaths of the supposed
>> witnesses, ergo, they are NOT eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay of the
>> most removed sort.
>
>What EVIDENCE? In order to prove they were altered, you'd need the
>original versions, which you do not have.
But the lack of original versions means that we don't know that they
WEREN'T altered, and we have no reason to believe that the original
versions were accurate reports in the first place.
Circe
> "Circe" <gua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> The odds are strongly against many contemporaries of Christ still
>>> being around at the end of that period, and even in 60AD, most
>>> were
>>> dead (the average lifespan in those days was 30-35 years).
>>>
>> Okay, I'm going to have to take issue with this. People in the
>> ancient world did not routinely die at 30-35 years of age.
>
> I believe that you are incorrect in this.
>
>> They certainly were not considered old
>
> In their 30s, no. In their 40s, perhaps.
>
was 16, I thought 40 was damned old. Now, I know it's not--probably because
I'm turning 40 in June!)
>> and people who died in the 30s, 40s, and even 50s were
>> considered to have died "too young".
>
> Evidence?
>
No evidence beyond what I was taught in my courses on ancient Greek and
Roman society during the years I was pursuing my PhD (got as far as an MA).
>> The reason you get an average lifespan
>> of 30-35 years isn't because people normally dropped dead at that
>> age, but because infant and childhood mortality was *extremely*
>> high,
>
> Here is one model for the Roman empire.
> http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html
>
> Life expectancy at birth was only 25. Those who made it to age 20,
> on average lived to 54.
>
I think that table actually bears out my contention that average life
expectancy for those who made it to adulthood was *much* longer than 30-35
years, though. Life expectancy at birth is so low only because infant
mortality is so high.
54 would have been considered a nice age to reach by the ancients, but
plenty of people made it into their 60s and even 70s. (Life expectancy goes
up to 65 if you make it to 45, presumably in part because by that time,
women have become post-menopausal and aren't risking death in childbirth any
more.) The ancients certainly would not have considered it *unusual* for a
person to be in his/her 60s or 70s; that seems pretty clear from the
literary sources.
>> So, while I'm far from convinced that any of the gospels were
>> written by people who actually knew Jesus, the 30-year gap between
>> his death and the writings of the gospels is not a reason to
>> assume that they could not have been. I'm quite sure that a fairly
>> decent proportion of people who were 25-30 when Jesus was executed
>> were still alive 30 (and even 40) years later.
>
> I'm sure that many were. From the table, half of 20 year-olds were
> dead by 54. Half of 54 year olds lived to 68-69. Thus we would
> expect that on average only around 3 of the 12 apostles would have
> been still alive by 70 AD,which is around the earliest plausible
> date for the gospels.
Three of 12 isn't none. And I'm certainly not trying to make the argument
that any of the apostles wrote the gospels. But they might well have been
alive to *report* what they had seen (or thought they had seen) to a person
who *did* write the gospels. And the person who *wrote* the earliest gospels
might well have lived contemporaneously with Jesus, even if he was not one
of the apostles who witnessed the Resurrection.
> Indeed
> Mark and Luke were NOT themselves on the list of apostles, and while
> John is the name of a couple of apostles, few scholars believe that
> the namesake for the book was one of those.
>
> The collected impression is that the gospels are not eyewitness
> accounts by people who knew Jesus, but 1st or 2nd hearsay accounts
> by people who came to follow Christ in the first years after He died,
> their impressions increasingly colored by Pauline theology (John is
> believed to be the last of the 4 gospels written).
>
And I certainly agree with that assessment. What I *don't* agree with is the
assertion that it would have been impossible for any of the gospel writers
to have been alive with and/or to have actually met Jesus. I think that *is*
possible, at least from a purely practical POV.