You might start by reading an introduction to the New Testament books in any scholarly edition.
I have over a dozen or so of such books. Your view is simply not supported by them.
Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus is good and accessible, and it can point you toward other sources.
What have you gleaned from Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus that is relevant to this thread? The book mainly discusses the textual fidelity of the New Testament, not its historicity. In any case, you may or may not know that Ehrman has been shown to be very irresponsible with his scholarship, and I can recommend several books which demolish his claims.
It is not looking too good for you if all you can list is Ehrman.
If you honestly think that these texts were authored by “living eyewitnesses,” though, there’s really nothing I can say that will correct your ignorance on the matter.
Make your case. For the last several decades, the dates of authorship for each of the Gospels have been continually pushed back so that the earliest ones are now within the 50’s and 60’s. This is well within living memory of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the case for later dates has always been highly circumstantial at best and arbitrary at worst. I also think the dates of authorship will be placed earlier and earlier as groupthink yields to new discoveries and insights. In fact, there have been many breakthroughs which date the authorship of Matthew and Mark to the 40’s, but they have yet to pierce through the groupthink of scholars.
As it is, though, the Gospels are far closer to the events they describe than secular histories in antiquity, and in light of what the Gospels, you know, say about themselves on this matter, eyewitness testimony being used is highly plausible. We also have strong internal and external evidence to verify this.
For a recent treatment on this, read Richard Bauckahm’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
May I remind again that the Gospels would be viewed as pristine histories if not for their subject matter.
EDIT: Actually, on second thought, there is something I could say to correct your ignorance. I could point out that scholarly consensus is that the Gospel authors are anonymous and that no one knows exactly who wrote them, as well as the fact that they likely date from a time after most of the supposed “eyewitnesses” would have long been dead.
The authors of the Gospels do not explicitly identify themselves, so they are anonymous in at least that regard. However, to the extent that there is a scholarly consensus on the authorship of the Gospels, it is
not that the authors cannot be known. In fact, there is diversity of opinion among scholars. The earliest manuscripts we have attribute authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and, as before, there is strong internal and external evidence to support this so that it falls on the skeptic to make a case.
Yeah! They’d have to make extraordinary claims, like a man doing magic or rising from the dead or something! Oh, wait…
You misunderstand me. What I am saying is that, for your vague skepticism to have any rational basis, the Gospels would have to be very
bizarre and
weird documents. The Gospels are ancient historiography that intend, quite clearly, to write history. And they, in fact,
do write history with accuracy, detail, and precision. The question is Why? To ground a myth so expertly and convincingly in the milieu of the times so as to be a radically deceptive hybrid unprecedented in the ancient world? Is this
really the most plausible explanation for the Gospels?
Again, remember, the medium is Hellenistic historiography, not myth. It might be helpful for you to compare and contrast ancient mythic literature with the Gospels and see how radically different the latter are from the former - the historical accuracy and detail of first century Judea present in the Gospels is so radically different from the ahistorical and fantastic exploits of Achilles and Hercules. And had the authors of the Gospels intended to write myth, we would not have seen a passive and persecuted figure, we would not have seen a figure shamed by the unspeakable scandal of the cross, but a figure more in line with Jewish expectations of the Messiah (i.e., a conqueror and political leader). But they didn’t write myth. They wrote history that was well-beyond the Jewish imagination to make up - Jesus of Nazareth is
that different. They also wrote history for audiences that were able to verify that history for themselves.
Your vague skepticism also makes the historical events that follow the Gospels to be very
bizarre and
weird. How could there be a historical movement with no historical basis? Where is the historical movement and history of martyrdom for Achilles and Hercules? What an odd anomaly of history your explanation of the Gospels provides us.
In short, your vague skepticism has no explanatory power whatsoever, and it even conflicts with the information we have.
