Is there even ONE written eyewitness account in the bible?

[Zzyzx]

.
In thread after thread Korah claims to have identified seven written eyewitness accounts in the bible. After repeated requests for substantiation / verification of that claim the response is repeated reference to what he wrote earlier. Lately it appears that the claim has been softened to "writings that MIGHT be eyewitness accounts."

Here, after many fruitless threads, perhaps we will learn about at least ONE of the accounts that is from an actual eyewitness (who can be shown to have observed what was written by him) – not a "might have."

This is not asking for conjecture or opinion, but for some solid indication that there is at least one account that can be credited to an actual witness.

Kindly debate the issue in THIS thread rather than referencing other threads.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Three of the four canonical gospels don't even claim to be by eyewitnesses. By contrast the author of John, despite writing in 3rd person, does identify himself as a witness of Jesus' life and death (1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14, 19:35). Textual evidence seems consistent with that claim, since of Jesus' three main disciples only Peter is named in the gospel: John calls himself the 'beloved disciple,' which doesn't tell us much, but also apparently avoided mentioning his dead brother, which is rather interesting. (In the synoptics Jesus' three main disciples are Peter, John and James - James died fairly early on (Acts 12:2), but both Paul (Galatians 2) and Luke (early chapters of Acts) confirm the ongoing prominence of Peter and John.)

The appendix to the gospel (21:24) provides additional confirmation that the author was a disciple, apparently written shortly after his death. Proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (c150 CE) quotes from the fourth gospel along with the other three as from the "memoirs of the apostles," and the unorthodox Valentinians Ptolemy (c150 CE) and Heracleon (c170 CE) both concurred that the gospel was written by John. Early support from such diverse sources strongly suggests that it wasn't written by a 2nd or 3rd generation nobody.


More information can be found here.
And in the spirit of full disclosure, one of many discussions between Student and myself on whether Justin Martyr actually quotes John can be found here.

[atheist buddy]

Of course there aren't any eyewitness accounts in the Gospels.

"Eyewitness" means "written by a person who saw it".

Take this passage from the Book of Matthew:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He [a]then became hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.� 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’�

5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and *said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,

‘He will command His angels concerning You’;
and

‘On their hands they will bear You up,
So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’�
7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’�

8 Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9 and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and [c]worship me.� 10 Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and [d]serve Him only.’� 11 Then the devil *left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him."

Was Matthew there with Jesus in the desert with Jesus for 40 days? Did he wittness with his eyes the devil come to him? When the Devil teleported Jesus from the desert to the temple and then to the top of a mountain, was Matthew teleported as well?

The virgin birth is "evidenced" by angels appearing in dreams to Joseph and Mary. Were Matthew and Luke eyewitnesses to these dreams?


Never mind the historical fact that the Gospels we read today were written centuries later, and are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of originals that were written between 40 and 100 years after Jesus had died. Never mind that. That's the low hanging fruit of arguments against the notion of eyewitness testimony. That's too obvious. We don't even need to go there.


The originals themselves were not eyewitness testimony. There are several theists on this board who acknowledge this. It's not even controversial.


And even if there were eyewitness testimonies, that would put the credibility of the accounts up to par with the dozens of eyewitness testimonies of alien abductions, Sai-Baba miracles, Bigfoot sightings, and encounters with Elvis.

So it doesnt really matter that much. Nobody with a vestige of good sense would take these crazy stories seriously.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Three of the four canonical gospels don't even claim to be by eyewitnesses. By contrast the author of John, despite writing in 3rd person, does identify himself as a witness of Jesus' life and death (1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14, 19:35). Textual evidence seems consistent with that claim, since of Jesus' three main disciples only Peter is named in the gospel: John calls himself the 'beloved disciple,' which doesn't tell us much, but also apparently avoided mentioning his dead brother, which is rather interesting. (In the synoptics Jesus' three main disciples are Peter, John and James - James died fairly early on (Acts 12:2), but both Paul (Galatians 2) and Luke (early chapters of Acts) confirm the ongoing prominence of Peter and John.)

The appendix to the gospel (21:24) provides additional confirmation that the author was a disciple, apparently written shortly after his death. Proto-orthodox Justin Martyr (c150 CE) quotes from the fourth gospel along with the other three as from the "memoirs of the apostles," and the unorthodox Valentinians Ptolemy (c150 CE) and Heracleon (c170 CE) both concurred that the gospel was written by John. Early support from such diverse sources strongly suggests that it wasn't written by a 2nd or 3rd generation nobody.


More information can be found here.
And in the spirit of full disclosure, one of many discussions between Student and myself on whether Justin Martyr actually quotes John can be found here.

Hi Mithrae, very briefly, because I don't want us to get mired in a long conversation: You mentioned that the author of John claims he is an eyewitness, and that's why you believe it's an eyewitness account.

As it occured to you that the anonymous author might claim that he was an eyewitness but in reality he wasn't?

Wouldn't the entirely plausible notion of somebody claiming to be an eyewitness even though it wasn't true, be somewhat consistant with the fact that the Book of John was written 70 years after Jesus had died?

[Mithrae]

Hi Mithrae, very briefly, because I don't want us to get mired in a long conversation: You mentioned that the author of John claims he is an eyewitness, and that's why you believe it's an eyewitness account.

As it occured to you that the anonymous author might claim that he was an eyewitness but in reality he wasn't?

Wouldn't the entirely plausible notion of somebody claiming to be an eyewitness even though it wasn't true, be somewhat consistant with the fact that the Book of John was written 70 years after Jesus had died?

I'm not aware of any reason why John might not have been written as early as 80CE. Even 95-100CE wouldn't exclude the possibility of it being a disciple's account however. Someone who'd been 18 at Jesus' death would be around 83 in 95CE; not a common age to reach in that period, but not unheard of either.

Either way, it's consistent with the content of the 'appendix' to the gospel: Chapter 21 is pretty much universally recognised to be a later addition, though early enough that it's found in all extant manuscripts if memory serves. The final story in it is a curious one in which Jesus three times tells Peter to "feed his sheep," and then carefully downplays the notion (based on the "some standing here will see it" comments in the synoptics) that at least one of Jesus' followers would live to see his return. It's easy to imagine the early church thinking that the Jewish revolt (70CE) must herald the return of Christ, but then growing more and more worried as the years ticked by and fewer and fewer disciples remained. The last surviving disciple/s of Jesus would have been keenly watched and listened to. This story in the appendix seems to be saying "Oh don't worry, the prophecies haven't really failed, they've just been misunderstood" - and re-affirming that with the last disciple's death, leadership of the church belongs to Peter's successors.

So it's not just the gospels' own claim which is important here (though considering it's the only canonical gospel to make that claim at all, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand). The author of the appendix obviously was also convinced that the author was a disciple (21:24). Likewise as I pointed out, the fact that it was accepted and attributed to an apostle by very diverse branches of Christianity (gnostics such as Ptolemy and proto-orthodox like Justin Martyr) as early as the mid 2nd century strongly suggests a more noteworthy origin than some 2nd or 3rd generation nobody.

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

[atheist buddy]

Hi Mithrae, very briefly, because I don't want us to get mired in a long conversation: You mentioned that the author of John claims he is an eyewitness, and that's why you believe it's an eyewitness account.

As it occured to you that the anonymous author might claim that he was an eyewitness but in reality he wasn't?

Wouldn't the entirely plausible notion of somebody claiming to be an eyewitness even though it wasn't true, be somewhat consistant with the fact that the Book of John was written 70 years after Jesus had died?

I'm not aware of any reason why John might not have been written as early as 80CE. Even 95-100CE wouldn't exclude the possibility of it being a disciple's account however. Someone who'd been 18 at Jesus' death would be around 83 in 95CE; not a common age to reach in that period, but not unheard of either.

Either way, it's consistent with the content of the 'appendix' to the gospel: Chapter 21 is pretty much universally recognised to be a later addition, though early enough that it's found in all extant manuscripts if memory serves. The final story in it is a curious one in which Jesus three times tells Peter to "feed his sheep," and then carefully downplays the notion (based on the "some standing here will see it" comments in the synoptics) that at least one of Jesus' followers would live to see his return. It's easy to imagine the early church thinking that the Jewish revolt (70CE) must herald the return of Christ, but then growing more and more worried as the years ticked by and fewer and fewer disciples remained. The last surviving disciple/s of Jesus would have been keenly watched and listened to. This story in the appendix seems to be saying "Oh don't worry, the prophecies haven't really failed, they've just been misunderstood" - and re-affirming that with the last disciple's death, leadership of the church belongs to Peter's successors.

So it's not just the gospels' own claim which is important here (though considering it's the only canonical gospel to make that claim at all, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand). The author of the appendix obviously was also convinced that the author was a disciple (21:24). Likewise as I pointed out, the fact that it was accepted and attributed to an apostle by very diverse branches of Christianity (gnostics such as Ptolemy and proto-orthodox like Justin Martyr) as early as the mid 2nd century strongly suggests a more noteworthy origin than some 2nd or 3rd generation nobody.

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

Mithrae, pardon my ignorance. I've been researching this for a couple of hours, and I can't find any reputable website (that is, a website that doesn't also contain threats of eternal torment for those who don't believe) which doesn't say that most modern scholars conclude that John the Apostle did NOT write the Gospel, the three Epistles and Revelations.

In saying that John was written by John the Apostle, are you making a faith statement much like those who say the Bible was inspired by God, or a scholarly statement stripped of any personal preference?

In the latter case, could you kindly list all the universities in which you're currently teaching Bible History or any other subject related to it, all the books you've published, all the scholarly publications on which you've written, etc? Also, where did you get your 1st, 2nd and 3rd PhDs? How many times has the Pope given you permission to study ancient manuscripts kept in the Vatican?

Understand, I'm not making an argument from authority. I'm just trying to ascertain the strength of the sources.

Everything I know about the Book of John is from reading the translation of the text into english, reading a couple of books by Bart Ehrman, and reading stuff on wikipedia. Now, I'm almost sure that you have much better qualifications than that, and have at least a Masters Degree on the subject, and have read all the Johannine works in original language. Still, while these things earn you above average qualifications on this forum, they only put you on the very lowest rungs of the ladder of true Biblical Scholarship.

So, hopefully you understand why I, as a layman, would be skeptical of opinions that go against the concensus of all the experts, at least until the minority opinions you've outlined, are established not to be opinions of someone who is as much of a layman as I am.

So, kindly give us a brief outline of your resume. Or maybe just provide a link to whichever university you're a tenured professor at. I'm sure they have your Bio posted somewhere.

Thanks,
AB

[Unhand Me Sir]

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

The "disciple Jesus loved" gets 5 mentions in John. In one Jesus on the cross tells him to look after his mother. In the others he recognises the risen Jesus and points him out to Peter, outruns Peter to be the first to reach the empty tomb, is the intermediary through whom Peter has to question Jesus at the Last Supper and is admitted to the Temple garden when Peter is not because he is "known to the High Priest."

It seems to me that this disciple isn't a person at all but a literary device - a slap down to Peter.

[Mithrae]

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

The "disciple Jesus loved" gets 5 mentions in John. In one Jesus on the cross tells him to look after his mother. In the others he recognises the risen Jesus and points him out to Peter, outruns Peter to be the first to reach the empty tomb, is the intermediary through whom Peter has to question Jesus at the Last Supper and is admitted to the Temple garden when Peter is not because he is "known to the High Priest."

It seems to me that this disciple isn't a person at all but a literary device - a slap down to Peter.

By having Peter as the one to take the lead, take the initiative? Peter motions for him to ask Jesus who the betrayer is. Despite being a slower runner (Oh, snap!), Peter is first to enter the empty tomb. Peter jumps from the boat to go to Jesus. As for the priest's garden scene, is it really a put-down to Peter to add to the synoptic story of his great failure that this beloved disciple was the one who got him into enemy territory in the first place?


####################
####################

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

Mithrae, pardon my ignorance. I've been researching this for a couple of hours, and I can't find any reputable website (that is, a website that doesn't also contain threats of eternal torment for those who don't believe) which doesn't say that most modern scholars conclude that John the Apostle did NOT write the Gospel, the three Epistles and Revelations.

And have you found any compelling evidence to back up that conclusion? A number of these scholars are quoted at earlychristianwritings.com and some of the reasoning is frankly pathetic, if not outright disingenuous:

• Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic?

Epiphaneus wrote in the late 4th century CE, while as I posted above the 2nd century gnostics Ptolemaeus and Heracleon evidently attributed the gospel to John. So this bible scholar apparently ignores the views of 2nd century gnostics, and for rhetorical effect puts the views of 4th century gnostics before the views of 2nd century orthodox Christians (Irenaeus etc.) to imply some remarkable incongruity in attribution of the gospel.

Similarly:

• Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):
  
  The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

No mention here of John 1:14 where the author says that he and others ("we") beheld the glory of God's only begotten (or 1 John 1:1-3); an utter failure to acknowledge that the appendix's claim should be taken seriously as an early attribution of authorship; and apparent ignorance of the grammatical difference between the two verses ("we know that his testimony is true" vs. "he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe") which shows a marked difference in perspective between the non-witness author of the appendix, and the author of the gospel itself.

Maybe Kysar addresses those concerns elsewhere, but I can only speak to what I've seen. I'm certainly no expert: I've just read a few books and websites and learned a bit from more educated folk during intermittent discussions over the past twelve years or so. As I linked in my initial post, I had a thread with some sixteen pages of discussion elsewhere in the forum, if you're interested. I'm not sure if any of them participated in that particular discussion, but some folk 'round these parts know a lot more about this stuff than I do (notably Student, Historia and ThatGirlAgain - not sure if she's still around). (Edit: Actually here's a discussion with Student about John from a different which I had saved.) I am guessing that if there were some compelling evidence that the authorship claims of the gospel and its appendix were false, I would have come across it by now - but I don't know for sure.

That's why I say only that the balance of evidence favours authenticity. (Though I should note that ch. 20:24ff and chapters 16 and 17 seem a little out of place, and might be later additions.)

[atheist buddy]

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

The "disciple Jesus loved" gets 5 mentions in John. In one Jesus on the cross tells him to look after his mother. In the others he recognises the risen Jesus and points him out to Peter, outruns Peter to be the first to reach the empty tomb, is the intermediary through whom Peter has to question Jesus at the Last Supper and is admitted to the Temple garden when Peter is not because he is "known to the High Priest."

It seems to me that this disciple isn't a person at all but a literary device - a slap down to Peter.

By having Peter as the one to take the lead, take the initiative? Peter motions for him to ask Jesus who the betrayer is. Despite being a slower runner (Oh, snap!), Peter is first to enter the empty tomb. Peter jumps from the boat to go to Jesus. As for the priest's garden scene, is it really a put-down to Peter to add to the synoptic story of his great failure that this beloved disciple was the one who got him into enemy territory in the first place?


####################
####################

We can't be certain who wrote it of course, but a pretty solid balance of evidence seems to favour its authenticity as a disciple's work (with John being by far the best candidate).

Mithrae, pardon my ignorance. I've been researching this for a couple of hours, and I can't find any reputable website (that is, a website that doesn't also contain threats of eternal torment for those who don't believe) which doesn't say that most modern scholars conclude that John the Apostle did NOT write the Gospel, the three Epistles and Revelations.

And have you found any compelling evidence to back up that conclusion? A number of these scholars are quoted at earlychristianwritings.com and some of the reasoning is frankly pathetic, if not outright disingenuous:

• Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic?

Epiphaneus wrote in the late 4th century CE, while as I posted above the 2nd century gnostics Ptolemaeus and Heracleon evidently attributed the gospel to John. So this bible scholar apparently ignores the views of 2nd century gnostics, and for rhetorical effect puts the views of 4th century gnostics before the views of 2nd century orthodox Christians (Irenaeus etc.) to imply some remarkable incongruity in attribution of the gospel.

Similarly:

• Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):
  
  The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

No mention here of John 1:14 where the author says that he and others ("we") beheld the glory of God's only begotten (or 1 John 1:1-3); an utter failure to acknowledge that the appendix's claim should be taken seriously as an early attribution of authorship; and apparent ignorance of the grammatical difference between the two verses ("we know that his testimony is true" vs. "he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe") which shows a marked difference in perspective between the non-witness author of the appendix, and the author of the gospel itself.

Maybe Kysar addresses those concerns elsewhere, but I can only speak to what I've seen. I'm certainly no expert: I've just read a few books and websites and learned a bit from more educated folk during intermittent discussions over the past twelve years or so. As I linked in my initial post, I had a thread with some sixteen pages of discussion elsewhere in the forum, if you're interested. I'm not sure if any of them participated in that particular discussion, but some folk 'round these parts know a lot more about this stuff than I do (notably Student, Historia and ThatGirlAgain - not sure if she's still around). (Edit: Actually here's a discussion with Student about John from a different which I had saved.) I am guessing that if there were some compelling evidence that the authorship claims of the gospel and its appendix were false, I would have come across it by now - but I don't know for sure.

That's why I say only that the balance of evidence favours authenticity. (Though I should note that ch. 20:24ff and chapters 16 and 17 seem a little out of place, and might be later additions.)

Sorry Mithrae,
No human can embrace the whole of human knowledge, and in some things we just have to rely on the work of unbiased experts rather than research the data ourselves.

For you and I, by mutual admission, the authorship of John is one of those things.

My apologies, but the musings of an admitted fellow layman on a highly complex subject which requires at a minimum post graduate specialized expertise, is not sufficient for me to doubt the entirely uncontroversial global consensus of experts who have devoted their life to answering these kinds of questions.

If there was any merit to your theories, it's safe to assume that experts who had devoted decades to this and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education on this subject matter, would have thought of it as well. In the off-chance that they haven't, don't hesitate to contact them and notify them of your discoveries. Who knows, we might see you on CNN shortly thereafter.

But I think that until then, by contesting the non-apostolic authorship of the Book of John, going against a global concensus of experts, you only look slightly less silly than 1213 contesting the heliocentric model.

[Mithrae]

That's why I say only that the balance of evidence favours authenticity. (Though I should note that ch. 20:24ff and chapters 16 and 17 seem a little out of place, and might be later additions.)

Sorry Mithrae,
No human can embrace the whole of human knowledge, and in some things we just have to rely on the work of unbiased experts rather than research the data ourselves.

For you and I, by mutual admission, the authorship of John is one of those things.

My apologies, but the musings of an admitted fellow layman on a highly complex subject which requires at a minimum post graduate specialized expertise, is not sufficient for me to doubt the entirely uncontroversial global consensus of experts who have devoted their life to answering these kinds of questions.

There are few questions of New Testament scholarship on which there exists an 'uncontroversial global consensus of experts' - the authorship of a few core Pauline epistles, perhaps. Even apparent no-brainers like two-source hypothesis has a not insignificant number of critics. In the case of John opinions range from dates of composition as early as 80CE or as late as 150, from multiple layers of development and redaction to a mostly coherent work with only minor revisions or additions, from Jewish/Essene origins for its theological concepts to Greek or even Gnostic origins, from genuine Johannine roots to entirely anonymous authorship.

Controversy is the nature of the beast I'm afraid, partly because of the limited amount of evidence available, mostly because conclusions depend very heavily on the interpretation of that evidence, and perhaps partly because very few people are interested enough to become biblical scholars unless they are current or former Christians or Jews; pretty much everyone's bringing some baggage or other into the discussion.

I don't think that Johannine origins for the work is even a minority view amongst scholars, but many suggest that it was brought to its current/final form by a 'Johannine community' which had developed around the apostle. That idea is rooted in the perception that there were multiple layers of redaction to the work. Yet that depends very heavily on personal interpretation of what the text looks like - perceived discontinuities which are alleged to reveal the presence of a later hand. As I commented above, there are two examples in the gospel which I think might have merit, but the others (I discussed one such theory extensively in that earlier thread) seem too much like vague guesswork to persuade me. Moreover even if there were multiple layers to the work, that would not necessarily mean that the words of the apostle were defaced by some nebulous 'community' (which supposedly respected him!). John would hardly have been the only author in history to have editted new material into his own work

Wikipedia lists several scholars - J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris, Martin Hengel, Hugh Schonfield - who apparently accept Johannine authorship of the gospel, but even those who hypothesize a 'Johannine community' hardly represent a drastically different viewpoint. As I said, I'm just an interested amateur who can only base his opinions on what I've learned so far: But I think I'm safe in saying that (while it's entirely understandable) your appeal to expert 'consensus' here is a little too simplistic to have any real merit.