Eyewitness and Real Life

October 8, 2009, 8:14 am by dc-agape.

John Chapter 19

This post will describe some of the issues with John’s account verse the Synoptic Gospels and the Traditions of Men.  Since only four Gospels have been canonized since 320 AD, we have four “eye-witnesses” to the events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion. But as it turns out some issues do crop up with this Traditional view of events.  Events before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, his death, and burial are a jumble of different “points-of-view”.  Some add things that the other “reports” leave out, others suggest unforgettable events that are eliminated from all the other reports. 

Let’s start with the Sanhedrin. The Synoptic Gospels tell us that Peter followed Jesus into the Sanhedrin.  Only the Gospel of John tells us that John was the one who got Peter in!  The Synoptic Gospels forget that John was even there.  If the Gospel of John did not exist, we would believe that Peter (by himself) just strolled right on in behind Jesus…but this is not what happened.  Why would all three of the Synoptic Gospels leave out such a detail?  We are told in the Gospel of John that Peter need special permission to enter!  We know that only Peter (and John) followed Jesus to the Sanhedrin:

Matt 26:56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.  Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

So from the beginning of the Sanhedrin trial the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke are just hearsay.  At least the Gospel of Mark is recorded by a close friend of Peter, while the Gospel of John is as close as we can get to a first-person eyewitness account (recorded 20 -50 years after the events).  That would certainly explain why John is suspiciously left out of the Synoptic Gospel.  The Synoptic Gospels were not written by men who were actually at the scene of the events.

On the topic of recording these Gospels, one must remember the life expectancy of citizens of the Roman Empire was less than 40 years and may have been as low as 25 years!  Even for John (or Peter to transcribe to John Mark) to have written this Gospel the date of the 50 is pushing the limits of sanitary conditions.  For John (or Peter) to still be alive in the 50’s he would have had to be between 15 – 18 years of age when he began to follow Jesus.  For John to have written his Gospel in the 80’s and to have died 68 years after the crucifixion John would have lived twice as long (possibly up to 4 times as long) as the average citizen of Roman and he was not even a Citizen!  A modern example of this is not someone living to be 120 years old, no it would be living to the age of between 140 – 280 years of age. 

Well it doesn’t look like I will reach the other questions about these events in this post.  But just bringing these two perspectives up I think initial the reason that most non-believers have difficulty believing the written word of the only source material we have about the life and times of Jesus.  It certainly leads to a suspicion of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Now of course the True Believer, will say that there was nothing wrong with a 15 year old following Jesus, and becoming the most important man in the early Church (Peter or John).  But claiming that these men lived into their 60’s is pushing the limits of credibility.  And as to my first point, about eyewitnesses, the True Believer would only say that they were told how the events occurred by Peter and John.  But if that were the case, why record hearsay as authoritative documentation?  Should not the Gospels explain that only two of the Apostles actually witness the events leading up to the crucifixion (and the crucifixion itself)? 

Posted in Gospel of John, Contradictions, Traditions of Men, Inerrancy - My Ass, Readings | Print | 3 Comments »