All these accounts were written 50-100+ years after Jesus. Why the delay? Why no accounts written contemporaneously with, or shortly after Jesus?
And with that time delay, doesn’t that imply a 2nd- or 3rd-generation telling of the story, with all its inherent distortions of the original?
Because the authors thought Jesus would return at any time. They didn't write it down because the didn't see the need. As they aged they changed their minds and penned the eyewitness accounts.
Why no accounts written contemporaneously with, or shortly after Jesus?
Answered above. What were you doing on September 11? Where were you? How did you first find out?
And with that time delay, doesn’t that imply a 2nd- or 3rd-generation telling of the story
No. Jesus was crucified at 33. If an eyewitness was 23 when Jesus was nailed to a cross, he would have been 73 at the 50 year mark.
50-33=17
The society, as in Jewish history until then, relied on oral history. Many people were witnesses to Jesus and as long as they lived they were able to keep the story straight, no way to change the story without it being corrected by others. The books started to be penned when the authors were getting old and wanted the story to stay in its correct form.
Totally untrue. Most of the Gospels (except perhaps John), were written down within thirty years after the crucifixion, as were Paul's letters (He died between 62 and 65 AD, so his letters were already written).
Here is the kicker, Luke's introduction to what is known as the Gospel of Luke:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
It's recorded that Luke was with Paul, with Peter and at least some other Apostles who were the eyewitnesses, so he got it all straight from them, and this in a culture that revered passing on truth, and Luke is clearly a careful, well educated man.
Notice he says that others prepared works before him, meaning that Mark and Matthew were likely written already.
The idea that everything was somehow forgotten and then made up because it was a 2nd and 3rd generation thing is simply incorrect, and one of the finest myths (dare I say lies?) of liberals ever concocted.
“All these accounts were written 50-100+ years after Jesus. Why the delay?”
Ummm, do your math please.
The NT books were written from between AD 45 and 96...with the great majority in the AD 45 to 63 range(only Revelation is alleged to be as late as AD 96). Jesus was crucified and resurrected about AD 30 or 33.
50-33 = 17 years...
So NOT “50-100+ years after Jesus.” Rather the Gospels were eye-witness recollections—which they had been preaching and teaching about for years—of slightly older Apostles written down, as you’d expect—definitely shortly after Jesus, and definitely NOT a 2nd or 3rd generation telling of the story. Paul’s letters were first, and his were practical writings to his newly planted Churches. Other letters came a bit later—but all the NT books were within the same generation who were eye-witnesses to Jesus.
Would you consider a book written now about the Clinton administration written long after, and generations removed? Clinton was first elected 21 years ago—about as far away as most of the NT books were written from Jesus’ day—not generations later.
I’ve found a lot of people get confused by the AUTHORSHIP dates verses the dates of formal official Church-council recognition of the canon (or list) of authentic apostolic (New Testament) books. Those formal lists did occur—as far as we can tell—generations later—but there is ample evidence that informal recognition was there for virtually all the important NT books, all along. The earliest list of NT books is the Muratorian canon from about AD 180...still only a little over 100 years after authorship, and formal recognition by Church councils took place in another 100+ years. That simple formalization of recognition however, doesn’t change the fact of 1st Century authorship—undisputed in recent years—for the NT books themselves.
This would be a bit like an official group of scholars today agreeing on what exactly are the Federalist Papers, and those scholars putting a formal stamp of approval on THE authentic list of those documents, and confusing that date (which in this example would be 2013) with when they were actually written, 225 years ago (big difference).