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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #30]

Yep. we differ on some interpretations. and I do think that my Theory explains many puzzles, but I certainly could be wrong. But essentially we agree on the basics.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #30]

Yep. we differ on some interpretations. and I do think that my Theory explains many puzzles, but I certainly could be wrong. But essentially we agree on the basics.

Agreed.
The reason for me discussing and debating about HJ with different and/or opposing mindsets is that I learn from them. In the beginning I might have seen a new piece of information each day, then each week, and so on. Seeing something new now is a great treat for me, and your point about 'Theophilus' was an exact example of how we continue to gather info through discussions, even after years of research.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #30]

Yep. we differ on some interpretations. and I do think that my Theory explains many puzzles, but I certainly could be wrong. But essentially we agree on the basics.

Agreed.
The reason for me discussing and debating about HJ with different and/or opposing mindsets is that I learn from them. In the beginning I might have seen a new piece of information each day, then each week, and so on. Seeing something new now is a great treat for me, and your point about 'Theophilus' was an exact example of how we continue to gather info through discussions, even after years of research.

Indeed. You can also have Bar Abbas (Bar Abba - Son of God) for free too. I keep learning new things, too, like Julius Africanus' explanation of the discrepant Genealogies. though I recall a claim of 'adoption' before, though I don't recall it being well argued. I found it ingenious but improbable. I couldn't explain why the widow, when her husband dies, marred someone a couple of generations earlier. Also, if adoption eliminated the line through Heli, why did Luke give that line? Or if he thought the ancestry was significant, why not give the adoption - line as well? It's the old problem with contradictions - in both versions are valid, why doesn't anyone ever give both versions? I think that Africanus' explanation is ingenious but improbable and thus the claim that he got reliable records is no more credible than Lee Strobel claiming that he looked at both sides of the argument before converting (1) and come to think of it, because I haven't come across it before, perhaps the Christian apologists see it as a bit improbable, too.

(1) like all those 'I used to be an atheist...like you...' types, they have forgotten all the atheist counter arguments.

[oldbadger]

Indeed. You can also have Bar Abbas (Bar Abba - Son of God) for free too. I keep learning new things, too, like Julius Africanus' explanation of the discrepant Genealogies. though I recall a claim of 'adoption' before, though I don't recall it being well argued. I found it ingenious but improbable. I couldn't explain why the widow, when her husband dies, marred someone a couple of generations earlier. Also, if adoption eliminated the line through Heli, why did Luke give that line? Or if he thought the ancestry was significant, why not give the adoption - line as well? It's the old problem with contradictions - in both versions are valid, why doesn't anyone ever give both versions? I think that Africanus' explanation is ingenious but improbable and thus the claim that he got reliable records is no more credible than Lee Strobel claiming that he looked at both sides of the argument before converting (1) and come to think of it, because I haven't come across it before, perhaps the Christian apologists see it as a bit improbable, too.

(1) like all those 'I used to be an atheist...like you...' types, they have forgotten all the atheist counter arguments.

Yes, you mentioned Bar Abba some time ago but I didn't thank you for it because I felt that both of the Jesuses were one and same many years gone by.

Those geneologies are both such totak junk, the desperate attempts to reverse in to prophesies and the body swerving ideas that have been concocted to explain them .

For something to do I'm going to plough through G-John, deleting anything which seems like gobbledegook, just to see what is left, there won't be much. If I enjoy the job I might try the others. Only incidental anecdotes will survive, I expect.

[TRANSPONDER]

Indeed. You can also have Bar Abbas (Bar Abba - Son of God) for free too. I keep learning new things, too, like Julius Africanus' explanation of the discrepant Genealogies. though I recall a claim of 'adoption' before, though I don't recall it being well argued. I found it ingenious but improbable. I couldn't explain why the widow, when her husband dies, marred someone a couple of generations earlier. Also, if adoption eliminated the line through Heli, why did Luke give that line? Or if he thought the ancestry was significant, why not give the adoption - line as well? It's the old problem with contradictions - in both versions are valid, why doesn't anyone ever give both versions? I think that Africanus' explanation is ingenious but improbable and thus the claim that he got reliable records is no more credible than Lee Strobel claiming that he looked at both sides of the argument before converting (1) and come to think of it, because I haven't come across it before, perhaps the Christian apologists see it as a bit improbable, too.

(1) like all those 'I used to be an atheist...like you...' types, they have forgotten all the atheist counter arguments.

Yes, you mentioned Bar Abba some time ago but I didn't thank you for it because I felt that both of the Jesuses were one and same many years gone by.

Those geneologies are both such totak junk, the desperate attempts to reverse in to prophesies and the body swerving ideas that have been concocted to explain them .

For something to do I'm going to plough through G-John, deleting anything which seems like gobbledegook, just to see what is left, there won't be much. If I enjoy the job I might try the others. Only incidental anecdotes will survive, I expect.

That's the way I went, or rather trying to reconcile the gospels as a workable agreed narrative between all 4. It was a shock to see how little remained. But the thing was that John always looked like two different writers, one writing diffuse theology and the other looking remarkably like an eyewitness. It was only recently that a debate on the power struggle around the sons of Damnaeus in 'Aniquities' made the actions of the High Priest look credible and not just Christian propaganda. It was really only the problem of Lazarus (why isn't that amazing miracle in the gospels?) that made me suspect that John the writer of tedious sermons and absurd shouting matches between Jesus and 'Jews' could also write apparent eyewitness material. When you think that the spear thrust and ankle breaking in John might be based on a passage of Psalms, and the calling of disciples in John is utterly unlike that in the synoptics, once has to suspect that John might have been better at screenplay that we might have supposed.

[oldbadger]

That's the way I went, or rather trying to reconcile the gospels as a workable agreed narrative between all 4. It was a shock to see how little remained. But the thing was that John always looked like two different writers, one writing diffuse theology and the other looking remarkably like an eyewitness. It was only recently that a debate on the power struggle around the sons of Damnaeus in 'Aniquities' made the actions of the High Priest look credible and not just Christian propaganda. It was really only the problem of Lazarus (why isn't that amazing miracle in the gospels?) that made me suspect that John the writer of tedious sermons and absurd shouting matches between Jesus and 'Jews' could also write apparent eyewitness material. When you think that the spear thrust and ankle breaking in John might be based on a passage of Psalms, and the calling of disciples in John is utterly unlike that in the synoptics, once has to suspect that John might have been better at screenplay that we might have supposed.

Yes. 2 or more authors for G-John. The style and temper changes are perceived even in the translation.
I do like various 'scenes', clearly the gospel was built up from a bundle of these, some interesting but most are quite rubbish, methinks.

[historia]

[E]yewitness 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.

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.

This strikes me as a gross overstatement.

I will happily grant that eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume, as a great deal of psychological research over the past 50 years has shown.

But it seems to me you've gone over to the other extreme here in suggesting that eyewitness testimony is "absurdly inaccurate" or will be "very likely highly inaccurate," which I don't think the research supports.

Consider, too, that much of the present-day concern around eyewitness testimony centers on identification of suspects in brief criminal encounters, whereas the gospels are primarily concerned with the teachings of Jesus, which he likely repeated over the course of years, and which some of his followers memorized and handed-down.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the way I went, or rather trying to reconcile the gospels as a workable agreed narrative between all 4. It was a shock to see how little remained. But the thing was that John always looked like two different writers, one writing diffuse theology and the other looking remarkably like an eyewitness. It was only recently that a debate on the power struggle around the sons of Damnaeus in 'Aniquities' made the actions of the High Priest look credible and not just Christian propaganda. It was really only the problem of Lazarus (why isn't that amazing miracle in the gospels?) that made me suspect that John the writer of tedious sermons and absurd shouting matches between Jesus and 'Jews' could also write apparent eyewitness material. When you think that the spear thrust and ankle breaking in John might be based on a passage of Psalms, and the calling of disciples in John is utterly unlike that in the synoptics, once has to suspect that John might have been better at screenplay that we might have supposed.

Yes. 2 or more authors for G-John. The style and temper changes are perceived even in the translation.
I do like various 'scenes', clearly the gospel was built up from a bundle of these, some interesting but most are quite rubbish, methinks.

I think it's instructive and revealing to consider G- John as regards the Baptism, which is pretty much ignored in favor of the calling in Galilee, and i think understandably.

John 1.25 ...questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
26 "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know.
27 He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."
28 This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

So, if there was any doubt, this is the same baptising. And we can see common claims, designed to diminish John and bolster Jesus, because (we learn from Josephus) many Jews honored John rather than Jesus.

, 9 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!,30 This is the one I meant when I said, A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.
31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."
32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.
33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.
34 I have seen and I testify that this is Gods Chosen One."

The account here looks at least partially credible in that John's disciples take up with Jesus, though reasonably after John had been executed. The calling in Galilee thus had to be of disciples he had already called.

35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples.
36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"
37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.
38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?"
39 "Come," he replied, "and you will see."So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon.
40 Andrew, Simon Peters brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus.
41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter ).

This could look somewhat like eyewitness, but it is so unlike the synoptic version (and historia above hints at what I call 'the campfire apologetic' which is that they told and retold all these tales and there is no excuse for all of them not knowing when they came to write their gospels) that - especially in the light of Lazarus plausibly being invented material, because the Synoptics apparently have never heard of it - that one has to doubt this whole scenario, not least for the usual reason - John has nothing of the calling in Galilee and the synoptics have nothing of the calling at the Jordan. And I reckon we already have evidence of individual (and contradictory) fabrication in the nativities, and no less in the resurrections. So why not here?

[oldbadger]

I think it's instructive and revealing to consider G- John as regards the Baptism, which is pretty much ignored in favor of the calling in Galilee, and i think understandably.

Ignored........ yep.....mostly. But let's have a look at it as shown by you:

John 1.25 ...questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
26 "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know.
27 He is the one who comes after me, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."
28 This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

By now Christianity had to raise its God high above such as John, so calls and answers questions for any hereinafter.
But there may have been a Bethany, definitely on the East bank 'The other side .........'.

So, if there was any doubt, this is the same baptising. And we can see common claims, designed to diminish John and bolster Jesus, because (we learn from Josephus) many Jews honored John rather than Jesus.

Of course......... scores of untold thousands knew about the man who immersed and cleansed sinners for nothing (but a tip) thus reducing the need for folks to take their money any further. No doubt that's why he got arrested.

, 9 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!,30 This is the one I meant when I said, A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.
31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."
32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.
33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.
34 I have seen and I testify that this is Gods Chosen One."

What a perfect example of a sell for Christianity....... a 'He wasn't that great compared to our Lord' job.
All in the bin.

The account here looks at least partially credible in that John's disciples take up with Jesus, though reasonably after John had been executed. The calling in Galilee thus had to be of disciples he had already called.

Some do....others don't. They later question the kind of bloke that Jesus was, they'd heard about his mates, his boozing, etc.

35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples.
36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"
37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus.
38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?"
39 "Come," he replied, "and you will see."So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon.
40 Andrew, Simon Peters brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus.
41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter ).

All I get from that is that Andrew was probably a disciple of John's, probably did alright from tips, and told his bro that it was all a good thing going. And they all hated the fat priesthood anyway so 'what's to worry?'
'Simon Peter's brother...' They couldn't even get his nickname right.

This could look somewhat like eyewitness, but it is so unlike the synoptic version (and historia above hints at what I call 'the campfire apologetic' which is that they told and retold all these tales and there is no excuse for all of them not knowing when they came to write their gospels) that - especially in the light of Lazarus plausibly being invented material, because the Synoptics apparently have never heard of it - that one has to doubt this whole scenario, not least for the usual reason - John has nothing of the calling in Galilee and the synoptics have nothing of the calling at the Jordan. And I reckon we already have evidence of individual (and contradictory) fabrication in the nativities, and no less in the resurrections. So why not here?

And so all I get out of all of that is that John did baptize on the other (East) bank, that Andrew had been a disciple, and that he brought his bro in to it all. And Jesus went down to the Jordan as well. John tells that Jesus and his were baptising further along from John (although Jesus was above it all!).

Mostly everything in this world is driven by........money. I expect that the Baptist had figured a brilliant way to mess with and hurt the Temple and its funds. The disciples loved the work because they got tips. Jesus liked it as well, and so did his mates. And the Baptist didn't mind because it just meant that the movement was even more damaging for Temple....... until the arrest. I expect that Jesus got clear away in to the wastes, and Christianity spun that in to the great temptation.

[Tcg]

[E]yewitness 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.

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.

This strikes me as a gross overstatement.

It's not. It's perfectly accurate.


Tcg