Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: bdbryant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bobby D. Bryant)
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:18:25 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, "Iasion" <quentinj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matt's dependence on Mark also puts its date somewhere around 80 CE
> (if not later) which is pushing the envelope for the plausibility of
> the author being a contemporary of Jesus. It's not impossible, of
> course, but this is an era when people generally didn't live much
> past forty or fifty years of age.
8<
> First of all there is the very late date (c. 100 CE if not later)
> which puts it at the absolute edge of any plausible lifespan for a
> contemporary of Jesus.
IMO these aren't good arguments; they're mere arguments from
incredulity, based on something that's not even particularly
incredible.
Nobody doubts that Sophocles lived to the age of 90, despite the low
life expectancy of the age.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: Matt Giwer
- Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: BernardZ
- Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- References:
- Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- From: Iasion
- Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Prev by Date: Info on the early Franks wanted
- Next by Date: Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Previous by thread: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Next by thread: Re: Gospels are not eye witness accounts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
