In Reply to: limits posted by Traveler on April 27, 2004 at 09:12:28:
It is quite a presumption to say:
Consider the time lapse between earth moving events and transcription several decades later by old aged men living a life of hardship, their memory of original experiences being replaced by later realized facts, the limits to writing style and documentation, limits of writing and copying material, writing trends, language and interpretation, translation factors, the passing along by word of mouth (potential disortions and inaccuracies), the limits of human understanding and abilities, the mixing in of egos and interpretations, the selection/discarding of documents by (often self-appointed) spiritual caretakers................. and you have the bible as it is today.
I can see you have a theory of how the Gospels came to be written. But much of what you say does nto take the circumstances of Jewish writing/memory into account, nor the technology they had available, thanks to the Roman influence. Several Roman writers had secretaries who wrote their every word down in shorthand on paper or wax-covered tablets.
There is strong evidence to indicate that some of the apostles took a kind of shorthand on tablets as Jesus spoke and these documents were saved and later used as source (Q/Quelle) documents for the Gospels. How else do you explain John quoting long speeches from Jesus (John 17) some 60 years after the fact? No human memory is that good.
Your theory reveals a disposition to treat the Gospels as innaccurate accounts. Fine if that's what you feel, but it's only a theory.