Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel Authors

I'm not sfs but I'll offer my views in case you're interested.Firstly I don't think we can rely on Paul's lack of interest in the historical Jesus as a solid argument that there was no such person. I beleive that the lack of information in Paul's Epistles is probably partly due to there being less to the historical Jesus than there is in the Gospels and partly Paul's own focus on his visionary experience (the only way he can claim parity with the disciples).What I think we can say about Jeus is :1) He came from Galilee2) He was, for a time, a follower of John the Baptist
(This is a point worth considering - although there is considerable "spin" in the Gospels they clearly state that Jesus submitted to John's Baptism - and the need for "spin" indicates it is something that is not likely to have been invented).3) He either claimed to be the Messiah or many people - including his leading followers came to believe that he was.4) He was executed by the Romans - crucified.5) After his death, some of his followers had experiences that they interpreted as indicating that he was still alive.
In my opinion, this was enough for them to hold to their belief in Jesus as Messiah and the concept of "the Second Coming" was invented to explain away Jesus' failure as Messiah.

Just a few more comments.Doubting the existence of Jesus is one thing - the evidence is certainly weak - although not unusually so for a minor figure eho left no writings. But doubting the existence of Paul seems perverse.While it is not unusual for religions to invent false histories for themselves it is very unusual for them to place them in the recent past - and it would be unusual indeed for one to erase its past history in favour of a fiction. Since it is also clear that the Jerusalem Church existed at the time of Paul's activities it follows that it probably originated in the correct time period for Jesus to be the founder. (The preference of the early Christians for oral over written accounts also suggests a recent origin).Moreover the acceptance of Paul as an apparent equal suggests that the founder was dead at the time of his conversion. The founder would almost certainly have had sufficient "clout" to keep Paul in second place - and cult leaders tend to desire complete control. Again this fits with the idea that a historical Jesus started the Jerusalem Church.On the other hand Paul needed the recognition of the Jerusalem Church. While it can certainly be argued that he effectively founded a new religion, its roots were clearly in the preceding Jerusalem Church. And it is from the Jerusalem Church that the original Jesus story must have come - Paul admits that his vision of Jesus was the last of the "appearances".So it seems to me that the basic idea of a historical Jesus fits well with the situation as it was in Paul's time. Christianity is a newish sect within Judaism, its founder is dead and they revere Jesus who at least comes to be regarded as the earthly founder in a period of a few decades.

quote:

---

but why do you trust the date and not the authors words?

​

what if they wrote it right after Jesus' death?

---

Can you tell me where in Mark the author claims to be a disciple ? Or gives a date where he wrote ? Or even tells us his name ?
(And before you refer to the title, I want something actually written by the author - the title naming "Mark" was added later, NOT written by the author).

So in other words, "what the author wrote" has no direct bearing on either the author's identity or the dating of the Gospels referred to.So why bring up the subject ?