The gap of some twenty years between the date of the Last Supper and the writing of I Corinthians and the even longer period before the Gospels were written have led to doubts as to their historical reliability and the suggestion that they reflect the concerns and situation of the early Christians at the time of writing rather than reporting objectively events which occurred decades before.
Why do scholars today always seem to paint things simple in the beginning, and use time to explain their current complexity?
For example, in the wikipedia article “The Origins of the Eucharist,” the authors point out the “gap of twenty years” between the life of Jesus and the first record of the Eucharist. The scholars introduce doubt regarding the last Supper within a twety year difference, which, from a historical point of view, is very very very very small (many reliable records are written hundred or hundreds of years after). The scholars then want to introduce an evolution: in the beginning, there was just a brotherly meal, and then over time all this extra sacrifice theology (usually of stuff the author doesn’t like) got thrown on top of it.
Why do these people seem to want to make historical Christianity fit the evolution Pattern mold?