Scholarly studies of the gospels make it quite clear that they could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Even if they were, though, they were not written down until decades after those events supposedly happen. During these decades, the witnesses would have swapped stories with others, pondered the events, heard about similar events, studies other tales, and so forth. All of these things would have contaminated the original memories immeasurably, making them completely unreliable under even the best circumstances.
In point of fact, eyewitness testimony is generally regarded as the least reliable of any sort of evidence that might be submitted during a criminal trial — at least by experts.
Is it a serious mistake to base my core beliefs on a text that is based on the oral stories of things that happened 30 to 40 years after the witness' account? How accurate could these stories be? Ever play the phone game in grade school?
2006-08-21
19:57:46
·
17 answers
·
asked by
GobleyGook
3
in
Religion & Spirituality