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?

[oldbadger]

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.

Surely? There is no 'surely'.
You can't presume what an individual should do, or how. We just have to review what is there and do our best to investigate for what truth there is.

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?!

The authors of G-John had a nice bundle of anecdotes, stories and accounts but no idea about when anything happened. They stretched the story out in time and concentrated on church and waffle. Turning the enemy from a corrupted Priesthood in to 'the Jews' was no only a dreadful lie but it was the foundation for two thousand years of anti-Semitism.

[oldbadger]

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.

Anybody who claims that Luke was witness just hasn't read Luke's introduction to Theophilus, nor his copied verses.
Matthew wasn't there either for the same reasons.

But at the point where somebody insists that they 'believe' then I just acknowledge their belief.

[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.

Anybody who claims that Luke was witness just hasn't read Luke's introduction to Theophilus, nor his copied verses.
Matthew wasn't there either for the same reasons.

But at the point where somebody insists that they 'believe' then I just acknowledge their belief.

Surely the idea of Matthew and Luke copying rather than writing their own experiences has to be the right one. The question is the method of copying. I won't write an essay on that. But I'll mention about Luke that I have a Theory about Theophilus. It's like he's dedicating his books to a patron, which was a convention amongst Roman writers, so I read, though I can't recall seeing it in any Roman text I read. But I had a nagging feeling that 'Luke' is being waggish in not really addressing the books to an actual person, patron but to all his Christian readers: Theo (God) Philus (lover) - he is writing to all lovers of God. I could be wrong.

But I couldn't be wrong about Matthew and him not being an eyewitness. The two donkeys blunder is down to his misunderstanding of the OT passage. The other writers just copy it out as one donkey because they don't overthink it. Matthew was trying to be too clever. He couldn't have actually been there to see Jesus on just one donkey. He also blunders over the 'babes and sucklings' passage, which nobody else has, so it's his own addition to the whole Temple debate. He has Jesus quote the wrong Septuagint reading of the passage rather than what any Jew would have used to the Sadducess who would have laughed at him if he'd used a Greek mistranslation. It's strong evidence that Matthew (despite the claim that he at least had to be a Jew) was no Jew and couldn't read Hebrew and didn't understand his OT scripture. Thus the realisation that he mangled his Rachel's children passage into an unhistorical claim of a Herodian massacre of children, and the notorious 'virgin' misreading of the Septuagint OT translation, is pretty much known to be wrong. Seeing the whole silly story about the mobile star and the waffle about the descending angel as ludicrous, not to mention the opening tombs, and we can see Matthew as a bit of a inventor and none too bright about it.

[oldbadger]

Surely the idea of Matthew and Luke copying rather than writing their own experiences has to be the right one. The question is the method of copying. I won't write an essay on that. But I'll mention about Luke that I have a Theory about Theophilus. It's like he's dedicating his books to a patron, which was a convention amongst Roman writers, so I read, though I can't recall seeing it in any Roman text I read. But I had a nagging feeling that 'Luke' is being waggish in not really addressing the books to an actual person, patron but to all his Christian readers: Theo (God) Philus (lover) - he is writing to all lovers of God. I could be wrong.

Now I like that........ I had not thought of the addressees' name like that before. Very good. Many thanks.

As a student of HJ, trawling through what info exists, I just accept that Luke was no witness and treat his gospel as a bundle of 'informations', some useful, mostly junk. The list of ancestors (!!)........ the idea that the son of working class parents would know his ancestral 'line', let alone people writing about him half a century later.... what a fiddle and a perfect example of body-swerving towards prophecies. But...... one Christian HJ scholar mentioned the Luke's named grand-parent, Heli, he wanted to explain that the Matthew line was different to Luke's because it was Mary's line, and so her full name would have been Mary BartaHeli (3;23). While I thought the explanation was junk I also was very pleased to learn how Eastern Aramaic spoke 'Daughter of'....sounding like 'Barta'.

But I couldn't be wrong about Matthew and him not being an eyewitness. The two donkeys blunder is down to his misunderstanding of the OT passage. The other writers just copy it out as one donkey because they don't overthink it. Matthew was trying to be too clever. He couldn't have actually been there to see Jesus on just one donkey. He also blunders over the 'babes and sucklings' passage, which nobody else has, so it's his own addition to the whole Temple debate. He has Jesus quote the wrong Septuagint reading of the passage rather than what any Jew would have used to the Sadducess who would have laughed at him if he'd used a Greek mistranslation. It's strong evidence that Matthew (despite the claim that he at least had to be a Jew) was no Jew and couldn't read Hebrew and didn't understand his OT scripture. Thus the realisation that he mangled his Rachel's children passage into an unhistorical claim of a Herodian massacre of children, and the notorious 'virgin' misreading of the Septuagint OT translation, is pretty much known to be wrong. Seeing the whole silly story about the mobile star and the waffle about the descending angel as ludicrous, not to mention the opening tombs, and we can see Matthew as a bit of a inventor and none too bright about it.

There is so much that is junk, T. My research is all about finding valuable verses, and Matthew doesn't offer that many.
The donkey and colt..... If Jesus had got hold of a donkey to ride then it was probably nicked, it's as simple as that imo.
I don't accept many of Matthew's 'teachings' either. Who stood by and took that lot down in shorthand, exactly? Only 'short-sweet' sayings are possible, imo.

And the fact that Jesus son-of-man and Jesus son-of-Father crossed paths in that last week, a Jesus who was welcomed in to Jerusalem by all, and days later another Jesus who was so loved that the people called for his salvation....... The gospel writers were spinning all that like hell, and since no outside writers (like Celsus or Josephus) mentioned a Barabba I can't believe he existed; I think that might have been the same Jesus who ransacked the Temple, maybe causing a death, etc

[TRANSPONDER]

Surely the idea of Matthew and Luke copying rather than writing their own experiences has to be the right one. The question is the method of copying. I won't write an essay on that. But I'll mention about Luke that I have a Theory about Theophilus. It's like he's dedicating his books to a patron, which was a convention amongst Roman writers, so I read, though I can't recall seeing it in any Roman text I read. But I had a nagging feeling that 'Luke' is being waggish in not really addressing the books to an actual person, patron but to all his Christian readers: Theo (God) Philus (lover) - he is writing to all lovers of God. I could be wrong.

Now I like that........ I had not thought of the addressees' name like that before. Very good. Many thanks.

As a student of HJ, trawling through what info exists, I just accept that Luke was no witness and treat his gospel as a bundle of 'informations', some useful, mostly junk. The list of ancestors (!!)........ the idea that the son of working class parents would know his ancestral 'line', let alone people writing about him half a century later.... what a fiddle and a perfect example of body-swerving towards prophecies. But...... one Christian HJ scholar mentioned the Luke's named grand-parent, Heli, he wanted to explain that the Matthew line was different to Luke's because it was Mary's line, and so her full name would have been Mary BartaHeli (3;23). While I thought the explanation was junk I also was very pleased to learn how Eastern Aramaic spoke 'Daughter of'....sounding like 'Barta'.

But I couldn't be wrong about Matthew and him not being an eyewitness. The two donkeys blunder is down to his misunderstanding of the OT passage. The other writers just copy it out as one donkey because they don't overthink it. Matthew was trying to be too clever. He couldn't have actually been there to see Jesus on just one donkey. He also blunders over the 'babes and sucklings' passage, which nobody else has, so it's his own addition to the whole Temple debate. He has Jesus quote the wrong Septuagint reading of the passage rather than what any Jew would have used to the Sadducess who would have laughed at him if he'd used a Greek mistranslation. It's strong evidence that Matthew (despite the claim that he at least had to be a Jew) was no Jew and couldn't read Hebrew and didn't understand his OT scripture. Thus the realisation that he mangled his Rachel's children passage into an unhistorical claim of a Herodian massacre of children, and the notorious 'virgin' misreading of the Septuagint OT translation, is pretty much known to be wrong. Seeing the whole silly story about the mobile star and the waffle about the descending angel as ludicrous, not to mention the opening tombs, and we can see Matthew as a bit of a inventor and none too bright about it.

There is so much that is junk, T. My research is all about finding valuable verses, and Matthew doesn't offer that many.
The donkey and colt..... If Jesus had got hold of a donkey to ride then it was probably nicked, it's as simple as that imo.
I don't accept many of Matthew's 'teachings' either. Who stood by and took that lot down in shorthand, exactly? Only 'short-sweet' sayings are possible, imo.

And the fact that Jesus son-of-man and Jesus son-of-Father crossed paths in that last week, a Jesus who was welcomed in to Jerusalem by all, and days later another Jesus who was so loved that the people called for his salvation....... The gospel writers were spinning all that like hell, and since no outside writers (like Celsus or Josephus) mentioned a Barabba I can't believe he existed; I think that might have been the same Jesus who ransacked the Temple, maybe causing a death, etc

Yes. The point is well taken that a working -class family would hardly know their ancestry. I can already hear the counter -arguments; this was a royal line (on both sides, as we shall see) and though they now had to work for a living, they knew their descent.

It is of course known that the two genealogies differ, and the excuse is that one is the royal line through Solomon and the other through Nathan, one being the line of Joseph and the other ending with Mary. That is of course not what it says and both end with Joseph. Apologists simply ignore than and say what they want it to say rather than what it does say. Taking into account all the other glaring discrepancies between Matthew and Luke, but both being compelled to write (contradictory) nativities, I would rather conclude that the genealogies are more of the same.

As you will have gathered, I see the 'junk' as structured; it is possible to see how it was put together (and often why) and the various layers, additions, improvisations and additions are detectable. It all becomes clear in the end, though not credible.

It's also a good point that the long speeches are not to be trusted. It is beyond belief that a mile of waffle was remembered that nobody else even hist at, but then something is omitted that one of the others 'remembers' at length. John is especially bad (not having the synoptic to copy) in that respect. He records pages of sermons on important theology that none of the others hint at - and it's important theology, too. There is every reason for the synoptics (just one of them) to remember it is they were eyewitnesses so good at remembering speeches, and on the other hand, John does not recite a single parable. But then some of the most memorable in Luke - the other syoptics don't record those either. The conclusion is obvious - they made this stuff up.

I agree with you about Barrabbas; I am convinced that he is Jesus in the personification of a zealot, while Jesus is the Jesus of the Christians. in a fabricated 'Passover exchange custom' the Jews are given the 'choice' and they opt for the zealot Jesus, and call for the death of the Christian Jesus with the result that Jesus supposedly predicted before he even entered the Temple they would not let Jesus gather Jerusalem under his chicken wings and since the the time was not right for the fruition of God's plan (as though He didn't already know that) Jerusalem was cursed, just as he cursed the fig tree. The Jews paid for their rejection of (Christian) Jesus and paid for it in the Jewish war, having opted for zealotry, and they 'died by the sword'. I have a theory that, once this is understood, all those cryptic and puzzling passages become clear. Even the one: 'How can the Messiah be David's son?' which I think the synoptic writers were puzzled by.

I still have a nagging feeling about John. Aside from his pretty identifiable additions, a lot still seems like it could be the eyewitness record, assuming there was one. If his version of the donkey is correct, it was tethered there all ready for Jesus' lads to collect the next morning with a message that it was Jesus who had sent them for it. Similarly, the raising of Lazarus looks like a very simple trick to impress the followers, and that the girls at Bethany knew that Jesus would be waiting at Peraea and to send their message there shouts that it was all planned beforehand.

It's only because there is no raising of Lazarus in the synoptics that I'm more inclined to think that it is an invention. But I may be wrong. Either way, it doesn't do much for the belief in Jesus as a divine being. At most, a failed Messianic claimant.

[Tcg]

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.

I didn't state that it is weird, I stated that I find it amusing. Eyewitness testimony is absurdly inaccurate, so even if it could be shown that we have eyewitness testimony of Jesus, it'd be of little value. For some odd reason some claim that we have it when we don't, and some think it'd be valuable if we had it even though it wouldn't.

As far as the horses, the pub, the casino, or the study of the Historical Jesus, there are many other choices. One doesn't have to become a drunkard or a gambler if they stop looking for evidence of the Jesus.


Tcg

[oldbadger]

I didn't state that it is weird, I stated that I find it amusing.

That is so reassuring..... HJ studies just amusing for you. Thank you for that clarity.

Eyewitness testimony is absurdly inaccurate, so even if it could be shown that we have eyewitness testimony of Jesus, it'd be of little value. For some odd reason some claim that we have it when we don't, and some think it'd be valuable if we had it even though it wouldn't.

Ah.... well you got all that wrong, in my opinion.
The gospels can produce a mass of useful information, and using it to show a real person, real mates and a real movement might have more value in reducing Christianity than dismissing it all. I just don't believe in throwing out baby with bathwater, and yes, that is my analogy and not yours.

As far as the horses, the pub, the casino, or the study of the Historical Jesus, there are many other choices. One doesn't have to become a drunkard or a gambler if they stop looking for evidence of the Jesus.
Tcg

Absolutely! That was my clumsy way of trying to suggest that HJ study is harmless and keeps an old mind thinking for an hour each morning. You are quite right.

[Tcg]

I didn't state that it is weird, I stated that I find it amusing.

That is so reassuring..... HJ studies just amusing for you. Thank you for that clarity.

Nope, you've lost track of the conversation. It's amusing that some think that eyewitness testimony is some kind of gold standard or something. It isn't. It's absurdly unreliable. Of course, given that we don't know who any of the gospel authors were, it is a moot point. Let's pretend that we have eyewitness testimony. We can't establish that, but let's pretend we can. Of what value is this most unreliable evidence?


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

I didn't state that it is weird, I stated that I find it amusing.

That is so reassuring..... HJ studies just amusing for you. Thank you for that clarity.

Nope, you've lost track of the conversation. It's amusing that some think that eyewitness testimony is some kind of gold standard or something. It isn't. It's absurdly unreliable. Of course, given that we don't know who any of the gospel authors were, it is a moot point. Let's pretend that we have eyewitness testimony. We can't establish that, but let's pretend we can. Of what value is this most unreliable evidence?


Tcg

It would certainly upset me to think that what people can remember can't be trusted. Perhaps because it plays into the Religious Believer - hands when they claim that nothing that humans know is reliable and only imaginary stuff about angels and prophetic messages that pop into their heads is reliable. Fortunately that nobody else gets the same messages and the prophecies never pan out anyway, scuppers such revelations, so we have (rather thankfully) to return to human records, backed up by scientific research where possible. And to get back to topic, I remain of the opinion that where the resurrection accounts are concerned, the pretty total contradictions put them into the category of what popped into their heads rather than what thy could remember.

[oldbadger]

Nope, you've lost track of the conversation. It's amusing that some think that eyewitness testimony is some kind of gold standard or something. It isn't.

Well that needs a few more questions from me.
Amusing......... what exactly does 'amusing' mean here; does it mean you smile, laugh, grin or something else at various proposals or claims?
What value do you put on 'eye-witness' testimony? As a professional specialist that trained people to become pro 'eye-witnesses' I do know t hat such testimony can be very weak or very strong, but I don't write it off, so how did you come to be amused by it?
Gold-standard....... Now that did amuse me, I smiled, because at first sight I read 'God-standard', so, OK, I was amused.

Each account should be reviewed separately from any others and should be assessed upon its own merits. Any account which survive that first review may be compared with each other........... more or less.

It's absurdly unreliable. Of course, given that we don't know who any of the gospel authors were, it is a moot point. Let's pretend that we have eyewitness testimony. We can't establish that, but let's pretend we can. Of what value is this most unreliable evidence?
Tcg

I don't mind not knowing who the authors were. I read about court cases from time to time and take great interest in some witness testimony without having had to have breakfast with any of them. Statements and depositions stand by themselves in first instance, then by comparison with any others in the second instance. It's best to just do the work impartially, without agenda and as honestly as possible....... then one can face the debate.

Any time you want to discuss or debate the proposal that 'there was a Jesus..as it happened, the same person whose memory was used to found churches' then I'm game. I have no interest in 'the churches' but do believe that a roughneck Northern Jew who tried to build a movement against the corruption of Temple and Priesthood (and failed) existed.

I reckon that Transponder has done the work, same as myself, we just formed different opinions and fell on the opposite sides of HJ debate, but you can always respect a good investigator who just did the job, regardless of which side we end up on, I guess.