So, now that I've successfully made a case for and defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth's existence in human history,
now I will make the case for the internal evidence for his existence
which is the reliability of the Gospels, and Paul's Epistles. While making a case for the reliability of these books, it would appear that one question immediately arise
:
The authorship of the Gospels: Who wrote them?
So how do we know who wrote the books? Well, what we have is testimony from the early church, men that were second generation apostles. The authorship of the books were uniform, unanimous according to the early Church, and there is no evidence of any competitors of authorship, no bickering, and no quarreling over who wrote the books.
It seems that the authors of the books were a given. If the early Church were so hell bent on giving credibility to the Christian faith and wanted to give potential converts more reasons to join the gang based on authorship, why would the early Church attribute names of the books (particularly the Gospels, in this case) to less respected men?
Luke and Mark wasn't even disciples of Jesus. Luke was a friend of Paul and Mark was a friend of Peter. Why not attribute the books to Peter and Paul, instead of their friends? Peter and Paul's named carried more weight than Luke and Marks, right? Or why not attribute some of the Gospels to Philip, or James..as their names also carried more weight than Luke and Mark's? The answer is simple. The early Church simply told it like it is, as there wouldnt be any significant reason to attribute authorship to these less respected individuals if it wasnt for the fact that these men actually wrote the books. There is nothing far-fetched about it, no reason to lie.
So, what is the testimony of members of the church regarding this?
Irenaeus was an early Church father and bishop and he said regarding the Gospels ..now keep in mind, he is citing Papias, who was an late first century Church Father and "hearer of John"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis , and the dating of Papias' work is considered to be late 90'AD, so if he is writing during the late 90's AD, he was at least 20 yrs old at the time (of course he was older, but at LEAST 20 yrs old)...and coincidentally, John is said to be the last living disciple and some have even argued that his Gospel was written around the late 90's AD...even though I don't believe it, but hey...it just seems a little too coincidental.
Here is what Irenaeus said:
"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peters preaching. Luke the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus".
Now granted, Ireaneus wrote this around 180AD, over 100 years after the last Gospel was written..but notice he said that the book(s) were handed down to them. So from the time that it was written, it was handed down to believers. And this is nothing special, considering we still have things like Declaration of Independence and many other sacred and or vastly important documents or books in history that has survived through time.
Again, it is worth reiterating that there were no other competitors to the authorship of the books in question. None. No paper trail of bickering. It isnt so hard to believe that of all 12 disciples, at least 2 of them wrote Gospels considering the Messiah..and if that isnt so difficult to believe, it is even less difficult to believe that two of the disciples friends wrote Gospels according to what their teacher told them concerning Jesus.
If any skeptic wants to make such a fuss about it, then in that case we should be skeptical about each and everything that was ever written in antiquity, unless people are just prejudice against the Bible for obvious reasons.
Now, we can go ahead and grant the fact that the average person living during that time could not read or write...but I do believe that Matthew was able to read and write...as he was a tax collector, and it the Gospel of Matthew if very detailed just like a tax collector's recollection would be. I don't believe that John or Peter could read or write, so they told their stories to their disciples, or scribes in the church.
Another point that can be made, a point that will likely be carried over to part 3 but is worth mentioning here...is the fact that whoever wrote the Gospels must have been living during the time, and in that region. How do we know this? Because only someone living during that time would know certain FACTS regarding the time and location...these facts include cultural customs, historical figures, and even the "nature" of things during the time.
Think about it...this was well before Wikipedia, the internet, and google...so a person that is thousands of miles away in Hong Kong wouldn't have a clue what is going on thousands of miles away in Jerusalem. The only way a person in Hong Kong (during that time) would know about what is going on in Jerusalem (and surrounding areas) would be if the person visited the area, or spoke to someone that DID visit the area.
So it is practically impossible for someone that is living thousands of miles away to make up a story that is entirely accurate...culturally and historically accurate if the person never been there. So the narratives as depicted in the Gospels must have originated from a source that was living in that time, and in that place.
What do I mean? If you lived in Hong Kong during the 1st Century AD, and you were tasked to write a fictional story regarding Jews in Palestine during the 1st Century AD...would you give these Jews the right names?
Tal Ilan is a Israeli historian and lexicographer, and she wrote a book titled Lexicon of Jewish Names in late Antiquity, covering periods from 330 BCE-650 CE...and what she found out is that based on 15,000 names, the Jewish names in Palestine show different frequencies from Jewish names elsewhere http://books.google.com/books/about/Lexi...WtzDLwpyoC
Now, it can be argued that all Gospels AND the book of Acts was written outside of Palestine, so how would the authors have given the biblical characters the right names despite writing the material in locations OTHER than where the names that they attributed to the characters were centered?
Now keep in mind that Tal retrieved her information from extra-biblical sources, and based on her findings, she discovered that the top 2 Jewish names of men in Palestine during that time was Simon, and Joseph, which makes up 15% of all men names...and what is remarkable about that is the name Simon is used 18% of the time as the NAME of 8 different men in the Gospels/Acts.
And we also have to remember that this data is SPECIFICALLY regarding the names of males during 1st Century Palestine...because for example, Jews living in Egypt during that time will have completely different names.
So what is the moral of the story? Only a person that was living DURING that time and IN that geographical location would be able to tell a story and give the characters in the story the correct names DURING the events which had taken place within the story. If someone was living far away from the location and much further from the time would not be able to pull off such a stunt.
And as usual, the biblical accounts of the narratives harmonizes so well with this data...think about it; It is common knowledge that the Jews of that time were not given last names....so in order to distinguish two people of the same name, each person's person's ancestry or native land was said in conjunction with the person's first name..or even their profession was given. So for example, Simon "the tanner" was a different Simon than "Simon, brother of Jude"....or John "the Zealot" was a different John than John, "son of Zebedee".
Matthew 14 begins the narrative regarding the beheaded of John the Baptist...
At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.
6 On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” 9 The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted 10 and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. 12 John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus.
Notice that she said "Give me here on a platter the head of John "the Baptist."
She obviously wanted to make that distinction since the name "John" was common, and she wanted to make sure that the right head was on the platter...and once the order was given, it was known EXACTLY which John she was talking about.
But look at what else is going on in the narrative, it starts off by calling John "the Baptist" in v. 2...but as the author continues the narrative in verse 3, he doesn't call John "the Baptist", because it is clear in context as which John is being referred to..it states "He had arrested JOHN"....HOWEVER, as the narrative picks up and Herod's wife is telling her daughter what the request should be, she called John "the Baptist"....so the author is using the name "John" in the context of someone telling a story and quoting exactly what someone (Herod's wife) would have said in the context that she would have said it in.
A person living in a different time and location would not know about such name formalities.
Not only that, but the Gospel of Luke (19:1-4) records Zacchaeus, a tax collector, climbing a sycamore tree to get a better view of Jesus. What is so special about that? Sycamore trees are only found in mid-lower part of Africa, and IN Palestine (and in the lower part of the Arabian peninsula)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_sycomorus
The narrative states that this event took place in Jericho, and there are sycamore trees in Jericho. You would only know that THIS particular kind of tree, which exists in only a select few places on the globe, would exist if you traveled to Jericho, or if you spoke to someone that traveled through Jericho...and Jericho is only 15-17 miles away from Jerusalem..so all of this is within the geographical location as a whole.
And last, all four Gospels are of the BIOGRAPHICAL genre. What is a biography? According to Merriam-Webster.com
Biography: the story of a real person's life written by someone other than that person
All four Gospels fit the definition, as they are all the story of a real person's life written by someone other than that person. Now, as mentioned previously, the vast majority of all scholars agree that the historical evidence points toward a historical Jesus (the man)..and if the Gospels are biographies of Jesus, they could have only been written by someone that knew Jesus personally, as there are to many details regarding Jesus' travels, his sermons, his actions....to many details that someone that never walked with him would know.
Have you all ever watched a crime television show where a person gives details that "only the killer would know"...well, the authors of the Gospels gives narratives that only the disciples would know. Only someone that was there would have known that kind of information? What information? ANY INFORMATION.
So in closing, we know that the Gospels are all anonymous...but we can have good reasons to believe that the all four Gospels were either written by disciples, or FRIEND of the disciples...how can we conclude this?
1. Because of early Church testimony (Iraneus, Papias):
2. Because the narratives give information that only someone that was there would know:
A.) The names: This information has only come to light within the past 12 years, and the Gospels got it right long before google, wikipedia, encyclopedias, and even good old fashioned cross-referencing research.
B.) The sycamore tree: If you were living in China during that time, you would not know that a sycamore tree is in Jericho. This harmonizes perfectly with A.
C.) Life of Jesus: You can only write a biography of Jesus if you spent a considerable amount of time with him, or you know someone that did...and the information that the Gospels give have information that only someone that spent a considerable amount of time with Jesus would not. For example, Nicodemus spent time with Jesus (John 3:1-21), but not enough time to write biographies about him....but the same cannot be said for Peter, John, and Matthew.
3. Gospel of Luke: the preface states "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
Luke is claiming that there are people going around saying that Jesus rose from the dead, and the story BEGAN to spread first by those that were eyewitnesses and servants of Jesus...keywords: eyewitnesses, servants
Now, if you compare that with Paul who stated that he received the creed from believers, and the fact that he met Peter who was an eyewitness, there is no doubt that at BEST, if we are honest with ourselves, we can determine that the original "story" of Jesus comes from eyewitnesses of Jesus..that is where the entire story originated, from eyewitnesses...and speaking of Paul..
4. Paul (1Corin 15:3-7): "Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
What is interesting about Paul is that he wrote most (if not all) of his Epistles BEFORE the Gospels were written. It is common knowledge that the Resurrection of Jesus is central point of the Christian faith, so why would Paul, a former persecutor of the Church (which he admitted in verse 9) be preaching a Resurrected Jesus even before the BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus were even written? Because the belief in the Resurrection itself was a early belief that goes right back to the cross, the message was already spread...in verse 2 he states "By this Gospel you are saved", and we all know that salvation is through belief in Jesus...but this harmonizes with the Gospels, which are biographies of Jesus...so if we can conclude that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, then Paul's message must have also originated from eyewitnesses, because it is the same message!!
And also, worth mentioning again, he had already met Peter and James, brother of Jesus...who were contemporary accounts to Jesus.
So in closing, it is because of ALL these reasons why I conclude that the Gospels were all written by either the disciples, or friends of the disciples. So now, between of parts 1 and 2, we can conclude that Jesus existed as a historical person, and that his biography was written by his friends, or friends of his friend...either way, reliable testimony nevertheless.
The authorship of the Gospels: Who wrote them?
So how do we know who wrote the books? Well, what we have is testimony from the early church, men that were second generation apostles. The authorship of the books were uniform, unanimous according to the early Church, and there is no evidence of any competitors of authorship, no bickering, and no quarreling over who wrote the books.
It seems that the authors of the books were a given. If the early Church were so hell bent on giving credibility to the Christian faith and wanted to give potential converts more reasons to join the gang based on authorship, why would the early Church attribute names of the books (particularly the Gospels, in this case) to less respected men?
Luke and Mark wasn't even disciples of Jesus. Luke was a friend of Paul and Mark was a friend of Peter. Why not attribute the books to Peter and Paul, instead of their friends? Peter and Paul's named carried more weight than Luke and Marks, right? Or why not attribute some of the Gospels to Philip, or James..as their names also carried more weight than Luke and Mark's? The answer is simple. The early Church simply told it like it is, as there wouldnt be any significant reason to attribute authorship to these less respected individuals if it wasnt for the fact that these men actually wrote the books. There is nothing far-fetched about it, no reason to lie.
So, what is the testimony of members of the church regarding this?
Irenaeus was an early Church father and bishop and he said regarding the Gospels ..now keep in mind, he is citing Papias, who was an late first century Church Father and "hearer of John"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis , and the dating of Papias' work is considered to be late 90'AD, so if he is writing during the late 90's AD, he was at least 20 yrs old at the time (of course he was older, but at LEAST 20 yrs old)...and coincidentally, John is said to be the last living disciple and some have even argued that his Gospel was written around the late 90's AD...even though I don't believe it, but hey...it just seems a little too coincidental.
Here is what Irenaeus said:
"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peters preaching. Luke the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus".
Now granted, Ireaneus wrote this around 180AD, over 100 years after the last Gospel was written..but notice he said that the book(s) were handed down to them. So from the time that it was written, it was handed down to believers. And this is nothing special, considering we still have things like Declaration of Independence and many other sacred and or vastly important documents or books in history that has survived through time.
Again, it is worth reiterating that there were no other competitors to the authorship of the books in question. None. No paper trail of bickering. It isnt so hard to believe that of all 12 disciples, at least 2 of them wrote Gospels considering the Messiah..and if that isnt so difficult to believe, it is even less difficult to believe that two of the disciples friends wrote Gospels according to what their teacher told them concerning Jesus.
If any skeptic wants to make such a fuss about it, then in that case we should be skeptical about each and everything that was ever written in antiquity, unless people are just prejudice against the Bible for obvious reasons.
Now, we can go ahead and grant the fact that the average person living during that time could not read or write...but I do believe that Matthew was able to read and write...as he was a tax collector, and it the Gospel of Matthew if very detailed just like a tax collector's recollection would be. I don't believe that John or Peter could read or write, so they told their stories to their disciples, or scribes in the church.
Another point that can be made, a point that will likely be carried over to part 3 but is worth mentioning here...is the fact that whoever wrote the Gospels must have been living during the time, and in that region. How do we know this? Because only someone living during that time would know certain FACTS regarding the time and location...these facts include cultural customs, historical figures, and even the "nature" of things during the time.
Think about it...this was well before Wikipedia, the internet, and google...so a person that is thousands of miles away in Hong Kong wouldn't have a clue what is going on thousands of miles away in Jerusalem. The only way a person in Hong Kong (during that time) would know about what is going on in Jerusalem (and surrounding areas) would be if the person visited the area, or spoke to someone that DID visit the area.
So it is practically impossible for someone that is living thousands of miles away to make up a story that is entirely accurate...culturally and historically accurate if the person never been there. So the narratives as depicted in the Gospels must have originated from a source that was living in that time, and in that place.
What do I mean? If you lived in Hong Kong during the 1st Century AD, and you were tasked to write a fictional story regarding Jews in Palestine during the 1st Century AD...would you give these Jews the right names?
Tal Ilan is a Israeli historian and lexicographer, and she wrote a book titled Lexicon of Jewish Names in late Antiquity, covering periods from 330 BCE-650 CE...and what she found out is that based on 15,000 names, the Jewish names in Palestine show different frequencies from Jewish names elsewhere http://books.google.com/books/about/Lexi...WtzDLwpyoC
Now, it can be argued that all Gospels AND the book of Acts was written outside of Palestine, so how would the authors have given the biblical characters the right names despite writing the material in locations OTHER than where the names that they attributed to the characters were centered?
Now keep in mind that Tal retrieved her information from extra-biblical sources, and based on her findings, she discovered that the top 2 Jewish names of men in Palestine during that time was Simon, and Joseph, which makes up 15% of all men names...and what is remarkable about that is the name Simon is used 18% of the time as the NAME of 8 different men in the Gospels/Acts.
And we also have to remember that this data is SPECIFICALLY regarding the names of males during 1st Century Palestine...because for example, Jews living in Egypt during that time will have completely different names.
So what is the moral of the story? Only a person that was living DURING that time and IN that geographical location would be able to tell a story and give the characters in the story the correct names DURING the events which had taken place within the story. If someone was living far away from the location and much further from the time would not be able to pull off such a stunt.
And as usual, the biblical accounts of the narratives harmonizes so well with this data...think about it; It is common knowledge that the Jews of that time were not given last names....so in order to distinguish two people of the same name, each person's person's ancestry or native land was said in conjunction with the person's first name..or even their profession was given. So for example, Simon "the tanner" was a different Simon than "Simon, brother of Jude"....or John "the Zealot" was a different John than John, "son of Zebedee".
Matthew 14 begins the narrative regarding the beheaded of John the Baptist...
At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, 2 and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
3 Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet.
6 On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much 7 that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” 9 The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted 10 and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. 12 John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus.
Notice that she said "Give me here on a platter the head of John "the Baptist."
She obviously wanted to make that distinction since the name "John" was common, and she wanted to make sure that the right head was on the platter...and once the order was given, it was known EXACTLY which John she was talking about.
But look at what else is going on in the narrative, it starts off by calling John "the Baptist" in v. 2...but as the author continues the narrative in verse 3, he doesn't call John "the Baptist", because it is clear in context as which John is being referred to..it states "He had arrested JOHN"....HOWEVER, as the narrative picks up and Herod's wife is telling her daughter what the request should be, she called John "the Baptist"....so the author is using the name "John" in the context of someone telling a story and quoting exactly what someone (Herod's wife) would have said in the context that she would have said it in.
A person living in a different time and location would not know about such name formalities.
Not only that, but the Gospel of Luke (19:1-4) records Zacchaeus, a tax collector, climbing a sycamore tree to get a better view of Jesus. What is so special about that? Sycamore trees are only found in mid-lower part of Africa, and IN Palestine (and in the lower part of the Arabian peninsula)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus_sycomorus
The narrative states that this event took place in Jericho, and there are sycamore trees in Jericho. You would only know that THIS particular kind of tree, which exists in only a select few places on the globe, would exist if you traveled to Jericho, or if you spoke to someone that traveled through Jericho...and Jericho is only 15-17 miles away from Jerusalem..so all of this is within the geographical location as a whole.
And last, all four Gospels are of the BIOGRAPHICAL genre. What is a biography? According to Merriam-Webster.com
Biography: the story of a real person's life written by someone other than that person
All four Gospels fit the definition, as they are all the story of a real person's life written by someone other than that person. Now, as mentioned previously, the vast majority of all scholars agree that the historical evidence points toward a historical Jesus (the man)..and if the Gospels are biographies of Jesus, they could have only been written by someone that knew Jesus personally, as there are to many details regarding Jesus' travels, his sermons, his actions....to many details that someone that never walked with him would know.
Have you all ever watched a crime television show where a person gives details that "only the killer would know"...well, the authors of the Gospels gives narratives that only the disciples would know. Only someone that was there would have known that kind of information? What information? ANY INFORMATION.
So in closing, we know that the Gospels are all anonymous...but we can have good reasons to believe that the all four Gospels were either written by disciples, or FRIEND of the disciples...how can we conclude this?
1. Because of early Church testimony (Iraneus, Papias):
2. Because the narratives give information that only someone that was there would know:
A.) The names: This information has only come to light within the past 12 years, and the Gospels got it right long before google, wikipedia, encyclopedias, and even good old fashioned cross-referencing research.
B.) The sycamore tree: If you were living in China during that time, you would not know that a sycamore tree is in Jericho. This harmonizes perfectly with A.
C.) Life of Jesus: You can only write a biography of Jesus if you spent a considerable amount of time with him, or you know someone that did...and the information that the Gospels give have information that only someone that spent a considerable amount of time with Jesus would not. For example, Nicodemus spent time with Jesus (John 3:1-21), but not enough time to write biographies about him....but the same cannot be said for Peter, John, and Matthew.
3. Gospel of Luke: the preface states "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
Luke is claiming that there are people going around saying that Jesus rose from the dead, and the story BEGAN to spread first by those that were eyewitnesses and servants of Jesus...keywords: eyewitnesses, servants
Now, if you compare that with Paul who stated that he received the creed from believers, and the fact that he met Peter who was an eyewitness, there is no doubt that at BEST, if we are honest with ourselves, we can determine that the original "story" of Jesus comes from eyewitnesses of Jesus..that is where the entire story originated, from eyewitnesses...and speaking of Paul..
4. Paul (1Corin 15:3-7): "Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
What is interesting about Paul is that he wrote most (if not all) of his Epistles BEFORE the Gospels were written. It is common knowledge that the Resurrection of Jesus is central point of the Christian faith, so why would Paul, a former persecutor of the Church (which he admitted in verse 9) be preaching a Resurrected Jesus even before the BIOGRAPHIES of Jesus were even written? Because the belief in the Resurrection itself was a early belief that goes right back to the cross, the message was already spread...in verse 2 he states "By this Gospel you are saved", and we all know that salvation is through belief in Jesus...but this harmonizes with the Gospels, which are biographies of Jesus...so if we can conclude that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, then Paul's message must have also originated from eyewitnesses, because it is the same message!!
And also, worth mentioning again, he had already met Peter and James, brother of Jesus...who were contemporary accounts to Jesus.
So in closing, it is because of ALL these reasons why I conclude that the Gospels were all written by either the disciples, or friends of the disciples. So now, between of parts 1 and 2, we can conclude that Jesus existed as a historical person, and that his biography was written by his friends, or friends of his friend...either way, reliable testimony nevertheless.
