JAK wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:Why would "scholars" ignore the possibility that Paul and others wrote simultaneously? When, for example, President John Kennedy was assasinated, a flurry of writings were produced by various authors reviewing the event. Why is that same possiblity completely discarded in the case of Bible scripts?
You tell me.
Jersey Girl
--------------
What makes you consider that “scholars ignore”? Scholars from the Roman Catholic Church have quite different views (scholarship) than scholars from the United Methodist Church. And scholars who are not committed to any religious doctrine/dogma have yet a different view of how things are in the world of religious doctrine.
Generally, the older the source is which is regarded as “original,” the less credibility it has. So a source hundreds or thousands of years in the past has less credibility than a video tape of an event which occurred yesterday such as the great winter storm of January 2007. That documentation has great credibility. It has peer review. It has multiple observers -- thousands of observers and photographers and commentators. The biblical writers have no such credibility regardless of claims made.
JAK
JAK,
What type of peer review would the Gospel's have been subject to? Can you think of any method in that time period that might meet the criteria for peer review?
Jersey Girl