"There were eye-witnesses"

[Zzyzx]

.
Some bible stories are claimed to be truthful "because there were eye-witnesses". Does that establish the truth of the story?

If a person claims to have run a mile in two minutes and says "there were eye-witnesses" does that establish the claim as legitimate – if the witnesses cannot be identified – if no statements from witnesses are available – if credibility of the witnesses is unknown?

If there actually was a witness report of the water-to-wine incident, is there any assurance that what they saw was not an illusion (keeping in mind that illusionists even today can perform "magical" feats that convince many observers)?

If the claim defies what we know of the real world, does witness testimony (or claim "there were witnesses") override real world considerations? Is a two-minute-mile any less believable than "arose from the dead" or "walked on water" or "calmed storms by command?"

[Zzyzx]

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists.

Might the closeness of gospel verbal accounts also be attributed to copying from one another (as scholars and theologians suggest) regardless of language and translation problems?

[postroad]

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists.

Might the closeness of gospel verbal accounts also be attributed to copying from one another (as scholars and theologians suggest) regardless of language and translation problems?

Yes.... The witnesses in a legal proceeding are segregated and are not allowed to hear the testimony of their predecessor for obvious reasons.

Not precluding the concept that witnesses can conspire beforehand, but I have seen the tactic fall apart on the stand.

One witness in visible discomfort in his answers to examination not knowing for certain what his conspirator had actually said under oath and the penalty for perjury a real possibility.

[Zzyzx]

.
I refer to identical complex wording in different gospels that is VERY unlikely to have occurred without copying from one another or from a mutual, unidentified source – either of which would seem to reduce credibility as independent sources and cast doubt upon the integrity of the writer.

Matt. 3:7-10, But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10"And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 3:7-9, "He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9"And also the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Matt. 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

It would be non-credible to account for such identical phrases by citing language or translation difficulties.

[Danmark]

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists.

Might the closeness of gospel verbal accounts also be attributed to copying from one another (as scholars and theologians suggest) regardless of language and translation problems?

Yes.... The witnesses in a legal proceeding are segregated and are not allowed to hear the testimony of their predecessor for obvious reasons.

Not precluding the concept that witnesses can conspire beforehand, but I have seen the tactic fall apart on the stand.

One witness in visible discomfort in his answers to examination not knowing for certain what his conspirator had actually said under oath and the penalty for perjury a real possibility.

Yes. Despite the standard order of the court that witnesses who have not yet testified be excluded from the proceedings, there is no guarantee they haven't colluded either before court, or while sitting out on benches in the hall way.

[micatala]

.
I refer to identical complex wording in different gospels that is VERY unlikely to have occurred without copying from one another or from a mutual, unidentified source – either of which would seem to reduce credibility as independent sources and cast doubt upon the integrity of the writer.

Matt. 3:7-10, But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10"And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 3:7-9, "He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9"And also the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Matt. 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

It would be non-credible to account for such identical phrases by citing language or translation difficulties.

I would agree. The gospels display clear evidence of authors copying from other authors, especially in the synoptic gospels. The so-called synoptic problem has not been unequivocally solved, but most scholars think Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark available to them, and this accounts for much of the similarity.

There is also the hypothetical Q gospel, purported to contain many of Jesus' sayings. Matthew and Luke may also have had a copy of this.

There are also notable places where Matthew and/or Luke alter material that probably came from Mark. You might read the parallel versions of the 'women with the issue of blood' miracle, or the baptisms of Jesus by John in the Jordan river.

Now, this would speak to whether these witnesses are independent. However, a detailed analysis will reveal that there are unique aspects to each gospel, along with the significant commonalities. There is dependence or overlap, but it is certainly not complete.


I think it is unfair to suggest this reflects a lack of integrity. Modern notions of plagiarism simply did not exist in that day. It would not have been considered unusual or dishonest in any way for one author to borrow material from another without attribution, any more than it would be considered dishonest for a person today to repeat what someone else had told them.

The most reasonable scenario for the creation of the gospels is that the process included a certain period of oral tradition, some early writings which are currently not extant, and then the writing of the 4 gospels (and others not included in the New Testament), based on these sources, with the four authors writing at somewhat different times, in different places, and for different audiences.

[Joab]

.
I refer to identical complex wording in different gospels that is VERY unlikely to have occurred without copying from one another or from a mutual, unidentified source – either of which would seem to reduce credibility as independent sources and cast doubt upon the integrity of the writer.

Matt. 3:7-10, But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10"And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 3:7-9, "He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8"Therefore bring forth fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 9"And also the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Matt. 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Luke 13:34, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!

It would be non-credible to account for such identical phrases by citing language or translation difficulties.

I would agree. The gospels display clear evidence of authors copying from other authors, especially in the synoptic gospels. The so-called synoptic problem has not been unequivocally solved, but most scholars think Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark available to them, and this accounts for much of the similarity.

There is also the hypothetical Q gospel, purported to contain many of Jesus' sayings. Matthew and Luke may also have had a copy of this.

There are also notable places where Matthew and/or Luke alter material that probably came from Mark. You might read the parallel versions of the 'women with the issue of blood' miracle, or the baptisms of Jesus by John in the Jordan river.

Now, this would speak to whether these witnesses are independent. However, a detailed analysis will reveal that there are unique aspects to each gospel, along with the significant commonalities. There is dependence or overlap, but it is certainly not complete.


I think it is unfair to suggest this reflects a lack of integrity. Modern notions of plagiarism simply did not exist in that day. It would not have been considered unusual or dishonest in any way for one author to borrow material from another without attribution, any more than it would be considered dishonest for a person today to repeat what someone else had told them.

The most reasonable scenario for the creation of the gospels is that the process included a certain period of oral tradition, some early writings which are currently not extant, and then the writing of the 4 gospels (and others not included in the New Testament), based on these sources, with the four authors writing at somewhat different times, in different places, and for different audiences.

And of course not written by apostles.

[Student]

Also bear in mind that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and the gospels are in Greek. That means that his sayings wouldn't be translated identically by everyone just as any work we might read in English that has been translated from French, Spanish or German wouldn't be identical in wording.

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists. Had each evangelist been translating independently from a common Aramaic source their Greek translations would have shown far greater divergence.

Consequently, either a particular evangelist knew of the work of another, or they were both using a common Greek source.

Why would an eye-witness rely upon a common Greek source when he would have his own Aramaic recollections? Is it likely that an eye-witness would simply copy verbatim [a translation] from someone else?

Excellent point!
In your reference to a common source are you referring to the so called 'Q' document? What other lost resources have scholars speculated about?

Hi Danmark
There has been a great deal of speculation about a number possible precursors to the gospels.

One of the hypothetical sources [proposed as a solution to the Synoptic Problem] is indeed a lost sayings gospel “Q�. The “Q� hypothesis is a popular [but only one of several competing hypotheses] means of explaining the material common to Matthew and Luke, but absent from Mark [the double tradition]. It has been argued that the degree of verbal agreement in the double tradition can only be explained on the basis of a common written Greek source i.e. “Q�.

Other features/peculiarities in the gospels have elicited other hypothetical pre-gospel sources and complexes including the “Passion Narrative�, the “Cross Gospel�, and the “Signs Gospel� etc. etc.

In the case of the “Passion Narrative� there is evidence of a tradition pre-dating the gospels. For example, in g.Mark [chapters 14 & 15] there is connected narrative with precise temporal and geographic references very much in contrast with the earlier part of the gospel where there are only independent, loosely connected perecopae. It has been deduced from this, that, whereas in the chapters leading up to the Passion, the author of Mark felt free to construct his own narrative out of isolated stories, with the Passion Narrative he was constrained by an earlier tradition [although not so constrained as not to add the odd perecope to it].

The evidence for the existence of this tradition is not only the different character of g.Mark in chapters 14 & 15, but also that g.Matthew and g.Luke no longer felt free to modify g.Mark to the extent that they did earlier. Even g.John, who felt at liberty to completely re-write the earlier history of the mission, follows the Marcan account or something very similar to it.

[Student]

The closeness of the verbal agreement between parallel episodes in the synoptic gospels can only be explained if the traditions about Jesus were already in Greek before they reached the evangelists.

Might the closeness of gospel verbal accounts also be attributed to copying from one another (as scholars and theologians suggest) regardless of language and translation problems?

Hi Zzyzx,
I see that you have already answered your own question in post #23.

I agree with your conclusions. It is highly unlikely that the verbal agreement in the synoptic texts could have resulted from each evangelist independently translating an Aramaic source. Had they done so their Greek texts would certainly have shown significantly greater variation than is in fact the case.

The verbal agreement in the Synoptics is best explained, in my opinion, by the two source hypothesis i.e. Marcan priority; Matthew and Luke, independent of each other, used Mark and another written Greek source, “Q�.

[Zzyzx]

I think it is unfair to suggest this reflects a lack of integrity. Modern notions of plagiarism simply did not exist in that day. It would not have been considered unusual or dishonest in any way for one author to borrow material from another without attribution, any more than it would be considered dishonest for a person today to repeat what someone else had told them.

The most reasonable scenario for the creation of the gospels is that the process included a certain period of oral tradition, some early writings which are currently not extant, and then the writing of the 4 gospels (and others not included in the New Testament), based on these sources, with the four authors writing at somewhat different times, in different places, and for different audiences.

Hi Micatala, It is good to see your (as always) reasoned and reasonable reply.

I agree regarding plagiarism and integrity as they applied thousands of years ago; however, I use the terms as they apply today (perhaps a bit unfairly?). What I intend to convey is that copying reduces credibility of the accounts as truthful and accurate or as verification of one another.

I also agree in general with your overview of the gospel origins.

[Korah]

korah wrote:

I have to admit that faith was not enough for me, so I have spent a lifetime finding evidence for the gospels.

First of all, your statement suggests that the Christian faith isn't based on any evidence. But it is. Secondly, I have spent a lifetime finding evidence for the gospels -- and more -- and it is the evidence I have found that makes me such a strong follower of Christ.

I wonder where your research led you. I have found that some people feed their doubt rather than their faith by reading only those things that speak against God, the Bible and Christianity. They do not entertain the other side of the picture at all because, in reality, they don't want to believe and they go looking for excuses not to. I am not saying you are one of those because I don't know you, but I have seen numerous cases of that.

In my Post #8 I gave a link to my key post in another thread, which your Post #10 shows you did not bother to read. I kept hoping someone else would prove me wrong that no one shows any real interest in finding unbiased historical evidence for Jesus, but I guess I'm stuck with commenting on your reply here.

Knowing that you won't look at it either, here's my link to my 1970 peer-reviewed article in which I stated that I could establish sound evidence for Jesus and the gospels. It happened to take another 42 years before my research got so far that I found there are seven written eyewitness records identifiable as sources within the four gospels:
http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1970jan-00155
Refer to my article "Philosophy as Science" page 160 carrying into 161.