Hi Paul,
I too have met people with similar views.
In their defence, they could argue that Luke wrote down his version from eyewitnesses that he interviewed, but that's about as good as it gets for the fundy, but Luke also reproduces about 70% of Mark's Gospel, and Mark wasn't an eyewitness.
I think there are more serious problems for the fundamentalist who thinks that the gospels are the inerrant word of God.
Firstly, we do not know for certain who wrote ANY of the Gospels, they are all anonymous.
Secondly, Matthew Levi was not the author of the Gospel of Matthew that we have, I think the view that Matthew Levi wrote the Gospel is only held onto by the fundies, no serious scholar would claim that Matthew' gospel is the work of Matthew Levi. One reason for this is that it reproduces almost 90% of Mark's Gospel, and Mark didnt claim to know Jesus, Mark was Peter's secretary apparently. So why would an eyewitness copy a non eyewitnes account?
Thirdly, are the contradictions and historical impossibilies in the accounts, the narratives have 'fiction' written all over them. for example, why was Jesus tried without witnesses, by Jewish law you were entitled to two witnesses? Also, you couldnt be tried on your own testimony. The sanhedrin could only meet in the Temple and they meet could not meet at night. It was also Holy Week, another time that the Sanhedrin couldnt meet. The list goes on and on, why is there no record of the 'tradition' of the Romans releasing a prisoner at Passover?
If the Bible is the word of God, then God's name isnt YWHW, it is Hans Christian Anderson.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2
