Hi
But Mark was NOT an eye-witness, so his Gospel (if we assume it WAS by Mark) is NOT an eye-witness account - its HEARSAY.
Yes, but my reply was specifically related to Jim’s criteria for rejecting/accepting the Gospels. Jim said :
Looking only at the names now attached to the gospels, we can see that 2 would have been eyewitnesses while the other 2 would not have been (Mark would have been an indirect eyewitness, so to speak). If we allow Mark to be Peter’s interpreter, then 3 gospels are possible eyewitness accounts and 1 is not.
My suggestion was if Jim was prepared to accept Mark’s Gospel as an ‘indirect’ eyewitness then he would, by the same criteria, have to allow for Luke being an ‘indirect’ eyewitness.
I agree with what you are saying, I do not give any credibility to the Gospel accounts at all, in fact, they are pretty poor examples of ancient literature. For example, compare the NT to the Book of Exodus, nothing in the NT comes anywhere near to the majesty of the Book of Exodus, even though it is mainly ancient folk lore.
I am actually appalled at what the Gospel authors, whoever they were, have done to the Old Testament; they have virtually butchered it in their attempt to make Jesus into something he clearly wasn’t. The most staggering thing is that their attempts to do so are so amateurish that I am amazed that anyone cannot see how they have ripped one or two lines from various OT books totally out of context.
And, as pointed out above, the Gospels were originally ANONYMOUS documents which were un-named until late 2nd century.
Furthermore, the 2 other synoptics copied the vast majority of G.Mark, word-for-word, showing they were not by eye-witnesses either.
Yes I studied some areas of Christianity at Stirling University with John Drane, I am fully aware of the 'synoptic problem'. My Honours dissertation was entitled ‘Constantine: Saint or Heretic’and whilst researching for this i studied a lot of the early Xian literature.
Also, neither the Gospels, nor their contents, nor their authors, are mentioned by any Christians until early-mid 2nd century - the earliest twenty or so Christian documents show NO KNOWLEDGE of the Gospel stories or events.
Well I think the Gospels are clearly trying to place a mythical Jesus into a historical setting, and they fail miserably. They essentially try to make this phantom into a real person and the only way that anyone can fail to notice this is to bury their head in the sand.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2