In Reply to: when were the Gospels written, and how? posted by Bible student on April 27, 2004 at 10:18:35:
"Jewish writing/memory", "technology they had available", "Roman influence", "secretaries", "shorthand", "paper or wax-covered tablets", the "Q/Quelle" theory, "John quoting long speeches from Jesus some 60 years after the fact", "No human memory is that good".
Whatever my disposition may be, it is not to treat the Gospels as innaccurate accounts. I think they are pretty darn accurate accounts.
Let's put it this way, I accept the fuzzy logic of it all, but not many of the traditional interpretations which seem to be to be hang ups about details which aren't necessarily the original point. I believe many personal biases were mixed in with the texts, despite a mighty fine job of ACCURATE transcription. I have a problem with SOME of the fine details or the language or expressions used (which may be the cultural human condition thing I am talking about) because I find them limiting. I am saying that the main part of the message of Jesus came through despite. I am saying that expressions are used dependant on cultural environment and audience, and that even then, what a person hears is not always what was said, because it is filtered through what we're able to understand and then what we are able to express.
It probably really bothers a lot of Christians that I can say what I do, that I believe the bible is THE Word of God, believe it is probably pretty accurate, but have trouble with the way some ideas and principals are expressed, and can't help but see the limits of the human condition coming through even in the bible, but it works for me fine. I just don't think it's so easy to fit Jesus into a few printed pages. Sorry if that's presumptous.