Question about the argument that there was too little time for legends to develope

[xdisciplex]

There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

I bet you also know this argument. But isn't 30 or more years a long time? I am not even 30 years old so I cannot say how good you can remember something which happened 30 years ago. How can they be so sure that within 30 or 40 years the memory was still so intact that the people remembered everything?
And on the other hand how many eye witnessed were still left after 30-40 years? How old did the people become back then?

 

[Jim1999]

Remember, that John lived to a ripe old age, somewhere between AD98 and AD117. He was an eye witness to the empty tomb and the early apostles. He also had disciples or students of his own and they would have reliable knowledge, which they passed on to younger disciples.

I am sure there would be a reliable verbal source of good, reliable information. The bigger question is, What did the students understand of what was taught? Was what they passed on always reliable in detail?

The Bible was never meant to be an historical text. It is the story of redemption in Christ Jesus, and therefore, lacks what we may deem important historical details.

Cheers,

Jim