Eyewitnesses In The Bible

Jones states that two Gospels in the Bible were based to accounts of eyewitnesses. The testimony of Luke claims to be of “those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning” and John’s Gospel is based on the claims of the apostle John, “ the one who saw this has testified, his testimony is true”. These Gospels use the support of eyewitnesses to push the truth. This is pointed out by Jones as he discusses Mark’s Gospel was around 70 A.D., which means that there had to be people still alive who were present for the risen Jesus.
Ehrman argues this reasoning, by stating the followers of Jesus spoke in Aramaic not Greek. These Gospels would not have been formed on the accounts of eyewitnesses because the people were from a lower class and were probability illiterate. The Bible, Jones explains, does note the Peter and John were unschooled, though this may mean they were unschooled in the Jewish law. Matthew is recorded to have been a tax collector, a profession that required education in reading and writing. Luke was described to be a physician, another profession required education, so it was most unlikely to be illiterate. Though Jones does acknowledge that Ehrman may correct on Mark and John being illiterate, but …show more content…
In Syria, Serapion the church leader of Antioch, dismissed this Gospel. The rejection of this book, Ehrman claims is because it did not fit Serapion’s predetermined belief of Jesus. This is argued by Jones that Serapion actually compared the Gospel of Peter and inconsistencies between Gospels of Peter 1 and Mark. Oral traditions that were linked to Simon Peter and writings that were handed down to followers. Based on these reasons is why Serapion rejected the book. In the 2nd century A.D., Jones also states that 20 of the 27 books were agreed upon as part of the canon, books that contain the teachings of Jesus