https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

But consider this, dear Reader: Most scholars date the writing of the first gospel, Mark, as circa 70 AD. Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD? That is four decades after Jesus’ death. During that time period, tens of thousands of people living in Palestine were killed in the Jewish-Roman wars of the mid and late 60’s, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.

How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus in circa 30 AD was still alive when the first gospel was written and distributed in circa 70 AD? How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus ever had the opportunity to read the Gospel of Mark and proof read it for accuracy?

I challenge Christians to list the name of even ONE eyewitness to the death of Jesus who was still alive in 70 AD along with the evidence to support your claim.

If you can’t list any names, dear Christian, how can you be sure that details such as the Empty Tomb, the detailed resurrection appearances, and the Ascension ever really occurred? How can you be sure that these details were not simply theological hyperbole…or…the exaggerations and embellishments of superstitious, first century, mostly uneducated people, who had retold these stories thousands of times, between thousands of people, from one language to another, from one country to another, over a period of many decades?

First, I encourage you to take a look at the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange. We have a wide variety of viewpoints there and it seems you would fit right in. I asked one question that assumes Marks 16:9-20 was a late addition. But there’s no reason you couldn’t provide an answer that challenges that assumption or even ask a question of your own and answer it. You might even enjoy answering our questions over there!

Second, I looked over your website and am impressed with the research shown that the longer ending of Mark is well represented in the manuscripts. I think we can agree that the internal evidence strongly suggests a separate author wrote that section. But you make a good case that we ought not to dismiss it quickly as being part of the Bible. I’ll have to put some more thought into that.

Third, because of Bart Erhman’s popularizations of textual criticism, I think Christians ought to begin thinking about the sometimes messy way our Scripture was written, compiled, and copied. Rather than feeling threatened by the origins of the texts, I think we ought to be in awe of how God speaks so clearly though them. We should acknowledge the complications, not run from them. In the end, I will trust that God has provided the portion of His Word that we need.

Thanks for the comment and I hope to hear more from you in the future, Jon

Regarding Mark 16:9-20 — most modern editions of the NT do not have footnotes that sufficiently describe the pertinent evidence. If you would like to find out more about the evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20 (and why the footnotes in versions such as the NIV and ESV are rather misleading to the typical reader), please contact me and ask for a copy of my research-book on this subject.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr. Minister, Curtisville Christian Church Indiana (USA)

]]>