/picking nits/
According to tradition, Paul was beheaded. As a Roman citizen, he would not have been crucified.
/end nit picking/
Not necessarily. One could believe the basic gospel of what was being preached without agreeing with all the “fine points” (the nature of Biblical inerrancy, for example).
>1 I am a Christian, and my Church is a Christain Church, but we do not nessesarily accept the Pauline writings as 'gospel" or canon.
>2 Bah. There are many recorded incidences of folks living to be 90 pre-modern medicine. Does not strain a thing to assume that ONE out of a group of some 14 or so lived to be 90. Mark was evidently a young man at the time of the Cruxifixion, maybe 13, so having him live to be some 50 years old is no strech.
Jmullany is right- Asimov is, to a large extent, based on the Anchor Bible.
nebuli- tomndeb is right. However, there is no reason to disbeleive this.
Note that all the Gospels were NOT written by Apostles. Luke is not an Apostle, nor did he ever meet JC. Mark was not an Apostle, per se. John is likely to have been dictated by him. Matthew- may well have been re-edited & re-written after his original authorship. Matthew may have been the author of what is called “Q”, ie the saying of JC witten during His life-or right after. There is no reason to assume Mark was not written by one John Marcus, an 'apostle" of Peter. If they were trying to make the Gospels sound as if they were written by the Apostles, we would have a “Gospel of Peter”, etc- instead of only 2 of the Gospels written by actual Apostles.
Danielinthewolvesden
I wan’t referring to your definition of “Christian”; I was referring to their definition, where “they” are the writers of the website quoted in the OP.
It certainly does strain my credulity. But that’s not what the OP asked. The OP asked about whether all four of the Gospel writers could have lived into their nineties. Surely you agree that the probability of four out of fourteen people living more than ninety years in ancient times is so low as to be neglible?
Umm, Mark was some 13 years old or so at the time of the Crucifxion. Thus, if he wrote the book in AD70, he was about 50. Matthew also came out in AD 70 or so, so he would have had to be around 60. Luke was a doctor & a secretary to Paul. He could have been about 20 in AD64, when many think Acts was written, so that would make him only in his mid-thirties when he wrote Luke in AD80 or so. Thus, only John had to live to be a venerable age.
I note especially that the gospels that are traditionally “earlier”, especially Matthew, place much more emphasis on Jesus the supernatural than Jesus the lawgiver.
Compare the emphasis on Jesus’ power over demons, the number of exrorcisms noted, to later Gospels. It is almost as though they wanted to de emphasize the “trailer park” flavor of that sort of thing. I recall one text, wherein traditional Jews are cited as saying “Look! He commands demons, he must be one of thier hierarchy!”
Perhaps the prism of culture is more distorting than of time.
This is a misconception I see come up time and again. Infant mortality is NOT counted when figuring average life expectancies. Deaths before a certain age (either 2 or 4, I can’t recall right now) are not counted. Otherwise we would be seeing life expectancies under 20 in some parts of the world today.
What part of “That’s not what the OP asked” did you not understand? The OP did not ask for your personal opinion on the ages of the Gospel writers. It asked
Umm, Ryan- the OP makes a false assumption. And he asked for our info.
I guess if you ASSSUMED the OED was written by a Monkey typing randomly on a typewriter, in about an hour, that “assumption” would show there is something wrong with the laws of probability. Since there is/was no need, evidence or likelyhood that all 4 Gospel writers were in their 90’s. your credulity need not be strained. Unless, of course, your credulity is strained by the OP’s belief in their assumption.
So say so. But don’t argue with other people that are willing to argue within the framework of the assumptions.
Hmm, I suppose my previous post may have created the impression that I created a sock puppet in September and have kept it in waiting for a relatively unimportant thread. However, the use of another screen name was completly unintentional.
Umm, let us see here. Ryan calls two of the statemenst in the OP “false”, and then gives his own OPINION. But I have to accept the entireity of the OP to be a given? What drugs are you guys on? We always are free to correct false assumptions in an OP.
Unintentional? Well, but still illegal, here. I’ll let the Mods decide, if they read this, and I certainly won’t point it out to them.
What drugs are you on? I never said that you have to accept the OP. What I said was that when I explicitly state that I am answering the question in the OP, taking the assumptions as given, it is inappropiate to refute my argument by claiming that the assumptions are false. I never said that it strains my credulity to believe that people who may or may not hae known Jesus may or may not have written accounts of him at the end of the first century. I said that it strained my credulity to believe that people who did know Jesus did write accounts of him at the end of the first century.
Originally posted by The Ryan:
The OP said to assume that the Bible* was written by contemporaries of Jesus and completed by the end of the first century, not necessarily at the end of the first century. Thus, if one posits Luke being about 20 years older than the age cited, Daniel’s response would be well in accord with the assumptions of the OP and yet still only require that one of the evangelists had been over 90.
*The entire Bible written by contemporaries of Jesus? That is certainly an interesting assumption 
“By” can mean “before” or it can mean “near”. From the rest of the OP, it’s clear that the intent was for it to mean “near”. And isn’t intent what’s most important? 
[sigh] Sorry for the “confusion”. I meant the four gospels, not the entire Bible. Chalk it up to old age…