Were there no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events?

[Goose]

And the gospels aren't even that. There were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospels events. Written works didn't arrive until quite a bit after the events described.

"The New Testament Gospels] were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. Where did these people get their information from? After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. When Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke the traveling companion of Paul). Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names (e.g., "The Gospel According to Matthew") do not go back to a single "original" title, but were added later by scribes."*

* Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of a New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 248-249; B. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 235; B. Ehrman and W. Craig, "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?: A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman" (March 28, 2006).

Questions for debate:

Is the claim by Miles, that there were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events, true?

Why is it true?

[YahwhatIsBack]

The Gospel of John internally claims to be based on an eyewitness account (1:14, 19:35, 21:24).

So is the mere claim of eyewitness testimony sufficient to demonstrate it actually is? If that were the case then we have an awful lot of eyewitness testimony in the apocryphal gospels!

The Apocryphon of James
"Since you asked that I send you a secret book which was revealed to me and Peter by the Lord,....I also sent you, ten months ago, another secret book which the Savior had revealed to me."

Gospel of Peter 60
"But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord"

Gospel of Thomas prologue
"Here are the [secret] words which Jesus the Living spoke an[d which were transcribed by Didymus Jude] Thomas."

Gospel of the Ebionites in Epiphanius Panarion 30.13.2-3
"There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, who chose us."

The Gospel of the Savior B 101
"Then the world became as darkness before us, the apostles. We became as [those] in the [im]mortal aeons, with our [eyes] traversing all the aeons and clothed with the [power] of our apostleship"

Infancy Gospel of Thomas 1
"I Thomas, an Israelite, write you this account"

If you mean something like the Gospels do not make an explicit internal claim to authorship, how does that support the claim they are not written by eyewitnesses when other works from the era that are traditionally thought to be eyewitness accounts likewise do not make such an explicit claim?

You mean like these accounts?

So far, all I have said is the record of my own autopsy and judgment and inquiry. Henceforth I will record Egyptian chronicles, according to what I have heard, adding something of what I myself have seen. [Herodotus 2.99.1-2]

I certainly all along remember from the beginning to the end of the war its being commonly declared that it would last thrice nine years. I lived through the whole of it, being of an age to comprehend events, and giving my attention to them in order to know the exact truth about them. [Thucydides 5.26.4-5]

These I designed to make the starting-point of what may almost be called a new work, partly because of the greatness and surprising nature of the events themselves, but chiefly because, in the case of most of them, I was not only an eye-witness, but in some cases one of the actors, and in others the chief director. [Polybius 3.4]

Ephorus says, "if writers could only be present at the actual transactions, it would be far the best of all modes of learning." [In Polybius 12.27]

Nature has bestowed on us two instruments of inquiry and research, hearing and sight. Of these sight is, according to Heracleitus, by far the truer; for eyes are surer witnesses than ears. And of these channels of learning Timaeus has chosen the pleasanter and the worse; for he entirely retrained from looking at things with his own eyes, and devoted himself to learning by hearsay. [In Polybius 12.27]

I [Timaeus] am not now proceeding on conjecture, but have investigated the truth in the course of a personal visit to the Locrians in Greece. [In Polybius 12.9]

Amid this variety of disasters Ursicinus, to whose attendance the imperial command had attached me, was summoned from Nisibis, of which he was in charge, and was compelled, in spite of his reluctance and his opposition to the clamorous troops of flatterers, to investigate the accusations in the deadly strife. [Ammianus Marcellinus 14.9.1]

And we relate this, not as hearsay, but as what we know, for we were often present, by reason of the intimacy between us, at his domestic arrangements. [Cornelius Nepos: Atticus 13]

At any rate, Philotas, the physician of Amphissa, used to tell my grandfather, Lamprias, that he was in Alexandria at the time, studying his profession, and that having got well acquainted with one of the royal cooks, he was easily persuaded by him (young man that he was) to take a view of the extravagant preparations for a royal supper. [Plutarch: Antony 28.2]

The remaining units of Pompey's army also fled, and large-scale slaughter of the tent guards and servants ensued in the camp. Asinius Pollio, who fought in that battle on Caesar's side, states that only six thousand of the troops fell. [Plutarch: Pompey 72.4]

For the lineal descendants of Themistocles there were also certain dignities maintained in Magnesia down to my time, and the revenues of these were enjoyed by a Themistocles of Athens, who was my intimate and friend in the school of Ammonius the philosopher. [Plutarch: Themistocles 32.5]

My father Suetonius Laetus took part in that war, as a tribune of the equestrian order in the Thirteenth legion. [Suetonius: Otho 10.1]

For since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings. [Josephus: The Jewish Antiquities 1.prologue]

I myself knew nothing of Galba, of Otho, or of Vitellius, either from benefits or from injuries. I would not deny that my elevation was begun by Vespasian, augmented by Titus, and still further advanced by Domitian. [Tacitus: Histories 1.1]

Meanwhile this book, intended to do honour to Agricola, my father-in-law, will, as an expression of filial regard, be commended, or at least excused. [Tacitus: Agricola. 3]

[Ctesias says that] he writes the plainest truth, adding that he writes what he himself saw and learned from those who saw. [In Photius: Library 72]

Soon afterwards Idomeneus and Meriones came, who were the closest of friends. I followed along with these. As to what happened earlier at Troy, I have tried to make my report as accurate as possible, Ulysses being my source. The account that follows, based as it is on my own observations, will meet, I hope, the highest critical standards. [Dictys of Crete 1.13]

But it is my intent to write a chronological account of the exploits of many emperors over a period of seventy years, exploits about which I have knowledge from personal experience. [Herodian 2.15.6]

I myself, besides that I would not idly exaggerate anything a vice to which historians are in general all too prone have taken Fabius, who lived at the time of this war, as my authority, in preference to any other. [Livy 22.7.4]

On most accounts, to be sure, I should not have mentioned this exhibition; but since it was given by the emperor himself, and since I was present myself and took part in everything seen, heard and spoken, I have thought proper to suppress none of the details, but to hand them down, trivial as they are, just like any events of the greatest weight and importance. [Cassius Dio 73.18.3-4]

My grandfather used to declare that he was a friend of his own, and that never was any one given preference over him either by Aurelian or by any of the later emperors. [Historia Augusta Aur. 43.2]

I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. [Hegesippus, in Eusebius: Church History 4.22.2]

And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after- time has established its truth? [Eusebius: Life of Constantine 1.28]

[oldbadger]

.

............. Just an.. FYI

"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses

[The following are observations by various scholars and other sources supporting this conclusion. All quotes can be found HERE]

I reckon that the author of G-Mark was a partial witness.
I reckon he was there at the arrest.
I think he was the youth who tore out of the clutches of officers and escaped.

Let the scholars come here and tell us all why this must be wrong.
And most of the rest of G-Mark looks like a deposition but written by the author.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to YahwhatIsBack in post #11]

It's a good point that just because a writer claims to be an eyewitness or a leas reliable is no guarantee that he is. We have to credit writers of histories, but how often to we hear that 'this record is disputed'? Often a bias or agenda is detectable. But what is worse with the gospels is that dubious elements are detectable. I am in two minds about this one, but it looked to me at one time that we had a factual eyewitness record in John (as he implies) writing the raising of Lazarus ad the events at Bethany (which changes the way it appears in the synoptic gospels). But the long theological sermons - which the synoptic gospels never even hint at - look like a very different voice.

And Luke, to take an example often pointed up by Gospel apologists as having made careful inquiry and brought together the records of others.... well, he's full of it as his blatant rewrite of the rejection at Nazareth proves - to anyone with an open mind. But I do think that apart from Q document (material he shares with Matthew and no -one else, indicating an addition to the synoptic original) I reckon he had access to Paul's letters (or copies, maybe) and he altered his gospel to fit them, as well as writing Acts, loosely based on them, and he surely used Josephus as he uses history of the Roman tax and revolt in his nativity and Acts (Gamaliel's speech), the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts, and I think to set the scene at Luke 3.

Judging historical veracity is always tricky, even today, but I think the gospels and Acts are a fairly safe bet - to Not be eyewitness.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to YahwhatIsBack in post #11]

It's a good point that just because a writer claims to be an eyewitness or a leas reliable is no guarantee that he is. We have to credit writers of histories, but how often to we hear that 'this record is disputed'? Often a bias or agenda is detectable. But what is worse with the gospels is that dubious elements are detectable. I am in two minds about this one, but it looked to me at one time that we had a factual eyewitness record in John (as he implies) writing the raising of Lazarus ad the events at Bethany (which changes the way it appears in the synoptic gospels). But the long theological sermons - which the synoptic gospels never even hint at - look like a very different voice.

And Luke, to take an example often pointed up by Gospel apologists as having made careful inquiry and brought together the records of others.... well, he's full of it as his blatant rewrite of the rejection at Nazareth proves - to anyone with an open mind. But I do think that apart from Q document (material he shares with Matthew and no -one else, indicating an addition to the synoptic original) I reckon he had access to Paul's letters (or copies, maybe) and he altered his gospel to fit them, as well as writing Acts, loosely based on them, and he surely used Josephus as he uses history of the Roman tax and revolt in his nativity and Acts (Gamaliel's speech), the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts, and I think to set the scene at Luke 3.

Judging historical veracity is always tricky, even today, but I think the gospels and Acts are a fairly safe bet - to Not be eyewitness.

Since the authors of G-John didn't know what happened or when...that's a fairly easy decision, imo.
Since Luke explained to Theophilus how he had compiled his letter/deposition and copied material, that's a fairly easy decision.
Matthew needed to copy accounts....... sorted....

But Mark ......... once the edits, adds and enhancements are gone you have a decent account from one person, written by another.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Goose in post #1]

I find it amusing that folks place so much effort in answering this question. Not only because we don't know who any of the Gospel authors were, but also because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. So even if we pretend to know who these authors were and if we pretend further that they were eyewitnesses of something or another, their reports are very likely highly inaccurate.


Tcg

[oldbadger]

I find it amusing that folks place so much effort in answering this question. Not only because we don't know who any of the Gospel authors were, but also because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. So even if we pretend to know who these authors were and if we pretend further that they were eyewitnesses of something or another, their reports are very likely highly inaccurate.

Tcg

It's just that since Christianity impacted so much on my early life, and still now can drive so many other people's opinions, to have been drawn in to study of Historic Jesus doesn't seem to have been so weird imo. The fact that I've kept at for so many decades, that's probably down to some kind of compulsion that built over time. Still...... that was better for me than getting caught up in the horses, the pub or the casino, etc.....

And, yeah, I'll propose that one gospel was the account of one of those people, only written by another. Having said that, his close friend was a man, an extraordinary bloke, and no God, in my opinion.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to YahwhatIsBack in post #11]

It's a good point that just because a writer claims to be an eyewitness or a leas reliable is no guarantee that he is. We have to credit writers of histories, but how often to we hear that 'this record is disputed'? Often a bias or agenda is detectable. But what is worse with the gospels is that dubious elements are detectable. I am in two minds about this one, but it looked to me at one time that we had a factual eyewitness record in John (as he implies) writing the raising of Lazarus ad the events at Bethany (which changes the way it appears in the synoptic gospels). But the long theological sermons - which the synoptic gospels never even hint at - look like a very different voice.

And Luke, to take an example often pointed up by Gospel apologists as having made careful inquiry and brought together the records of others.... well, he's full of it as his blatant rewrite of the rejection at Nazareth proves - to anyone with an open mind. But I do think that apart from Q document (material he shares with Matthew and no -one else, indicating an addition to the synoptic original) I reckon he had access to Paul's letters (or copies, maybe) and he altered his gospel to fit them, as well as writing Acts, loosely based on them, and he surely used Josephus as he uses history of the Roman tax and revolt in his nativity and Acts (Gamaliel's speech), the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts, and I think to set the scene at Luke 3.

Judging historical veracity is always tricky, even today, but I think the gospels and Acts are a fairly safe bet - to Not be eyewitness.

Since the authors of G-John didn't know what happened or when...that's a fairly easy decision, imo.
Since Luke explained to Theophilus how he had compiled his letter/deposition and copied material, that's a fairly easy decision.
Matthew needed to copy accounts....... sorted....

But Mark ......... once the edits, adds and enhancements are gone you have a decent account from one person, written by another.

But Badger, if you concede the edits and additions, Mark cannot be the original. You can try to argue that the original that Mark based his gospel on is the original version, but even that's doubtful because it contains a lot of material not found in Luke but is found in Matthew also ("The Great Omission") I'm postulating a revised synoptic gospel with the Mark/Matthew material in, which Luke didn't use, though he did use the material that Mathew also uses, but since they use it in different ways, it is a separate document ("Q"). So present Mark is 2 edits removed from the postulated synoptic original, which can be restored by taking out all he discrepancies, edits and contradictions, and you may argue for that as the original synoptic gospel.

But it gets even worse, as John differs from that, too. He has no angelic message at the tomb, first thing; so that is not part of the original story. Once John is reconciled with the (postulated) synoptic original, then we can talk of eyewitness accounts.

But it gets even worse than that....

[YahwhatIsBack]

If you pay attention to how the authors of historical literature cited their sources in post #11 above, you'll notice that they place a great emphasis on eyewitness testimony or explicitly explain their own relation to the events. Now compare that with Mark's gospel who never explains his relation to the events or says "this is Peter's testimony." Surely, if Peter or another eyewitness was his source then he would have let us know that if, of course, Mark was writing in the historical genre! Since all the gospels (maybe even John) are dependent on Mark, then that's a huge problem for the one who wants to argue the gospels contain eyewitness testimony.

Since there was an obvious trend in this Jesus "gospel" genre to falsely claim authorship, that trend obviously had to start somewhere. I see no good reason why it couldn't have started with the anonymous "we" attribution to a certain "disciple" in John's gospel. Given this trend, the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the one claiming the document actually is eyewitness testimony, not on the one who doubts it. That's a heavy burden given the obvious differences between John and the synoptics. Evidently, the "eyewitness" in John just happened to witness totally different miracles, teachings, and noteworthy sayings that somehow went unnoticed by the synoptic authors. John has a highly developed Hellenistic logos Christology which is obviously out of place in Jesus' original Jewish background. This would explain why the author of John uses the term "the Jews" profusely and many times in a derogatory sense when the synoptic authors were careful to distinguish it was the "chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees" who were the opponents of Jesus. Did John just forget both he and Jesus were Jewish?!

[TRANSPONDER]

That's also an incidental good point; while some say that Matthew and Luke 'Copied Mark', others say they were their own eyewitness sources. Of course I can already hear the convolutions the Bible apologists will go through to make it somehow both, but that's still a query about the 'eyewitness' claim.

[oldbadger]

But Badger, if you concede the edits and additions, Mark cannot be the original.

True..........

You can try to argue that the original that Mark based his gospel on is the original version, but even that's doubtful because it contains a lot of material not found in Luke but is found in Matthew..............

I don't do any of that. I review each deposition on its own.

.................also ("The Great Omission") I'm postulating a revised synoptic gospel with the Mark/Matthew material in, which Luke didn't use, though he did use the material that Mathew also uses, but since they use it in different ways, it is a separate document ("Q").

Then you can do that, but I take each gospel and trawl what I can from each...... that's it.

So present Mark is 2 edits removed from the postulated synoptic original, which can be restored by taking out all he discrepancies, edits and contradictions, and you may argue for that as the original synoptic gospel.

No..... Mark shows what it shows plus some junk. Just remove as much junk as possible..... do the same with other accounts.

But it gets even worse, as John differs from that, too. He has no angelic message at the tomb, first thing; so that is not part of the original story. Once John is reconciled with the (postulated) synoptic original, then we can talk of eyewitness accounts.

I don't think so......... If you want to muddle it all up, or all together, and then look at that mess, then that's up to you.

But it gets even worse than that....

Yes..... it will!
There's a car accident.
several people see it.
they all give statements about it.
some will even get the colours of the cars wrong.
some will decide who was to blame and it will make difference to what they state.

Mix them all together? OMG! What a mess!