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?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Goose in post #1]

At this point, (minus a written record from a witness), the answer has to be "I don't know".

I'm guessing Miles simply misworded things (or maybe not, I'll leave that for Miles to defend). I think the point being made is that the gospels we have were not likely written by eye witnesses. If they were, they provide no internal evidence that they were. In fact, the evidence we have is that some of the gospels were copied from common texts (word for word in Greek). That, for me, puts a nail in the cross for eye witness testimony. You don't copy someone else's testimony word for word and expect to be taken as a credible eye witness testimony.

Regardless of all this, the easiest way to falsify the premise of no eye witnesses writing about the gospel events would be to produce a written work from a verified witness. Do we have that? And no, just pointing to the gospels won't fly. What evidence might we have that they are written by eye witnesses.

[oldbadger]

Questions for debate:

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

Why is it true?

Not true.
Although Luke and Matthew needed to copy other accounts (not witnesses) and the authors of John didn't have a clue about when anything happened (not witnesses) the author of G-Mark may have been a partial witness as well as (probably) reporting the memoirs of Cephas.

The arrest interests me; I think that the author of G-Mark was the youth who pulled away and ran free during the arrest.
1. Would the officers who failed to hold him say much about that?
2. During the mayhem who took time to be a spectator?
3. Did the youth involved remember that incident for ever?
4. Was the incident particularly special to anybody but the youth who escaped?

I say that was probably the author of G-Mark.

[TRANSPONDER]

Posters heare will probably be tired of hearing it from me but the Resurrection account - everything after the women finding the omb open, which is common to all four - is fabricated.

John has no angelic message. That (I would argue) was tacked onto the empty tomb to prompt the listener into leaping to the right conclusion of why it was empty.

G Mark is probably closest to the synoptic original (Mark has his own additions) in which the women run away from the tomb and that All. There was nothing else. The other stuff is all invented as they are completely different (we can revisit that if we must) and (since we will probably get this apologetic) the Appearances in I Corinthians are different, too.

The conclusion (if so) is that there was no original common story, and that means, no eyewitnesses.

[Goose]

At this point, (minus a written record from a witness), the answer has to be "I don't know".

You seem to be suggesting you are agnostic on the question.

I'm guessing Miles simply misworded things (or maybe not, I'll leave that for Miles to defend). I think the point being made is that the gospels we have were not likely written by eye witnesses. If they were, they provide no internal evidence that they were.

But that doesn't prove they weren't eyewitnesses. Besides your statement here is incorrect. The Gospel of John internally claims to be based on an eyewitness account (1:14, 19:35, 21:24). 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?

In fact, the evidence we have is that some of the gospels were copied from common texts (word for word in Greek). That, for me, puts a nail in the cross for eye witness testimony.

So much for “I don’t know.” Now you seem to be affirming the assertion made by Miles in the OP.

You don't copy someone else's testimony word for word and expect to be taken as a credible eye witness testimony.

You’re making a few assumptions here regarding Markan priority. But assuming Markan priority I don’t agree here that using someone else’s testimony would necessarily rule that author out as a credible eyewitness. If Matthew and Luke used Mark and Mark was based on Peter’s preaching, that would seem to bolster the testimony, not diminish it. And how does your argument apply to points where Matthew and Luke present their own unique material? In any case, granting your argument would only rule out Matthew. The Gospel of John doesn’t “copy someone else's testimony word for word.”

Regardless of all this, the easiest way to falsify the premise of no eye witnesses writing about the gospel events would be to produce a written work from a verified witness. Do we have that?

Sure, that would be an easy way to falsify the premise depending on what you mean by a “verified witness.” Perhaps you can tell me how one goes about verifying witnesses from thousands of years ago. Further, no one bears the burden to prove the assertion false. Miles, or you, bears the burden to prove it true.

And no, just pointing to the gospels won't fly. What evidence might we have that they are written by eye witnesses.

You’re attempting to shift the burden here again. You are asking for evidence to prove the assertion in question false.

But since you asked. By comparative ancient standards there is quite a bit of good historical evidence from the likes of Papias, Ireneaus, et al. that the Gospels of Matthew and John were authored by witnesses. Similarly we have quite a bit of good historical evidence that Mark was based on Peter’s preaching. Luke explicitly tells us in the opening to his Gospel that his information was handed down from witnesses. We have the preaching of Peter recorded in Acts the author of which implies he was a companion of Paul.

[Goose]

Posters heare will probably be tired of hearing it from me but the Resurrection account - everything after the women finding the omb open, which is common to all four - is fabricated.

Even if that were true, that would still leave us with a resurrection.

John has no angelic message. That (I would argue) was tacked onto the empty tomb to prompt the listener into leaping to the right conclusion of why it was empty.

Your argument is noted though not particularly relevant to the OP as far as I can see.

G Mark is probably closest to the synoptic original (Mark has his own additions) in which the women run away from the tomb and that All. There was nothing else.

The Gospel of Mark ends with the affirmation of a resurrection and declaration there will be appearances (16:6-8).

The other stuff is all invented as they are completely different (we can revisit that if we must) and (since we will probably get this apologetic) the Appearances in I Corinthians are different, too.

This seems to be a non-sequitur. The “other stuff” being different doesn’t necessarily imply that it was invented. It may just as easily have come from different sources.

The conclusion (if so) is that there was no original common story, and that means, no eyewitnesses.

The original common story seems to be death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. That is the common story found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians you mentioned and all four Gospel accounts. Therefore, using your reasoning, that means eyewitnesses.

[benchwarmer]

At this point, (minus a written record from a witness), the answer has to be "I don't know".

You seem to be suggesting you are agnostic on the question.

I think we are misunderstanding each other.

I'm agnostic on the question in the OP. i.e. "there were no eye-witnesses who wrote about gospel events".

There may very well have been witnesses to 'gospel events', but these eye witnesses AND their written testimony may be lost to time. You seem to be implying that the gospels we have in the Bible are the only possible writings from possible eye witnesses to the events written in the Bible gospels.

i.e. someone may have witnessed one of the events we have in the current gospels, but their writing may not have survived (and thus their version of events). That does not mean what we do have is from an eye witness.

In fact, the evidence we have is that some of the gospels were copied from common texts (word for word in Greek). That, for me, puts a nail in the cross for eye witness testimony.

So much for “I don’t know.” Now you seem to be affirming the assertion made by Miles in the OP.

No, see above. What I'm saying is that what we do have, (the contents in the Bible, not some other possible accounts we don't have access to) clearly contain the hallmarks of copying from other sources. Were the original sources eye witness accounts? We don't know. What we do have is clearly not. If it was, it would be an original work, not a copy of something previous.

You don't copy someone else's testimony word for word and expect to be taken as a credible eye witness testimony.

You’re making a few assumptions here regarding Markan priority. But assuming Markan priority I don’t agree here that using someone else’s testimony would necessarily rule that author out as a credible eyewitness. If Matthew and Luke used Mark and Mark was based on Peter’s preaching, that would seem to bolster the testimony, not diminish it. And how does your argument apply to points where Matthew and Luke present their own unique material? In any case, granting your argument would only rule out Matthew. The Gospel of John doesn’t “copy someone else's testimony word for word.”

Regardless of which came first, we have evidence of plagiarism. There is copying going in some of what we have. i.e. the Synoptic Problem.

Regarding unique material, that's easy. They copied some material and added their own material to fit the narrative they wished to convey. Just because you copy some of someone else's work does not prevent you from adding your own.

Regarding the Gospel of John, I'll grant you that. That was not part of what I was talking about. Please see my original post where I said "some of the gospels were copied from common texts".

Regardless of all this, the easiest way to falsify the premise of no eye witnesses writing about the gospel events would be to produce a written work from a verified witness. Do we have that?

Sure, that would be an easy way to falsify the premise depending on what you mean by a “verified witness.” Perhaps you can tell me how one goes about verifying witnesses from thousands of years ago. Further, no one bears the burden to prove the assertion false. Miles, or you, bears the burden to prove it true.

Agreed that it's on Miles to support (not prove) his assertions. My point is that the argument would be solved if we had good evidence of a witness account. By 'verified', I simply mean supported by some compelling evidence. Clearly this will vary from person to person. Yes, I know there is no iron clad way to 'prove' anything here.

What we can support though is that some of the gospels are retelling of previous writings. This is based on textual analysis (Synoptic Problem) where word for word Greek is used. I'm pretty sure none of the possible eye witnesses to Jesus life were Greek scholars (people fluent enough in Greek to write gospels in Greek). Feel free to somehow support otherwise. Even if we grant for the sake of argument someone who is fluent in Greek was witnessing Jesus do stuff, why where they copying the writings of some other Greek writers? Seems pretty fishy.

And no, just pointing to the gospels won't fly. What evidence might we have that they are written by eye witnesses.

You’re attempting to shift the burden here again. You are asking for evidence to prove the assertion in question false.

Yes, if we are simply looking at what Miles wrote, me asking for counter support is not relevant. Apologies for taking the obvious tangent and asking for what support we do have for eye witness testimony. As far as I can tell, we have no support there, but you are correct that it does not help the comment from Miles.

But since you asked. By comparative ancient standards there is quite a bit of good historical evidence from the likes of Papias, Ireneaus, et al. that the Gospels of Matthew and John were authored by witnesses. Similarly we have quite a bit of good historical evidence that Mark was based on Peter’s preaching. Luke explicitly tells us in the opening to his Gospel that his information was handed down from witnesses. We have the preaching of Peter recorded in Acts the author of which implies he was a companion of Paul.

Thanks for that, but I don't consider this 'good'. It may be the best there is, but it's rather dubious at best. If you find it convincing, then great. Many don't.

[oldbadger]

G Mark is probably closest to the synoptic original (Mark has his own additions) in which the women run away from the tomb and that All. There was nothing else. The other stuff is all invented as they are completely different (we can revisit that if we must) and (since we will probably get this apologetic) the Appearances in I Corinthians are different, too.

Yes......... I don't know how this account remained in the bible...maybe it was Cephas's deposition and he being so close to Jesus 'they' just couldn't bring themselves to edit or extract it completelly.

[TRANSPONDER]

Posters heare will probably be tired of hearing it from me but the Resurrection account - everything after the women finding the omb open, which is common to all four - is fabricated.

Even if that were true, that would still leave us with a resurrection.

John has no angelic message. That (I would argue) was tacked onto the empty tomb to prompt the listener into leaping to the right conclusion of why it was empty.

Your argument is noted though not particularly relevant to the OP as far as I can see.

G Mark is probably closest to the synoptic original (Mark has his own additions) in which the women run away from the tomb and that All. There was nothing else.

The Gospel of Mark ends with the affirmation of a resurrection and declaration there will be appearances (16:6-8).

The other stuff is all invented as they are completely different (we can revisit that if we must) and (since we will probably get this apologetic) the Appearances in I Corinthians are different, too.

This seems to be a non-sequitur. The “other stuff” being different doesn’t necessarily imply that it was invented. It may just as easily have come from different sources.

The conclusion (if so) is that there was no original common story, and that means, no eyewitnesses.

The original common story seems to be death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. That is the common story found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians you mentioned and all four Gospel accounts. Therefore, using your reasoning, that means eyewitnesses.

That is the rather familiar bias -confirmation excuse used to dismiss the very demonstrable situation that the gospel accounts differ so much that they cannot be recounting a reliable sequence of events. Superficially they look like it because of the beliefs the early Christians wanted to make claim of: "death, burial, resurrection, and appearances". Death and burial, granted, Resurrection, believed, but no evidence for it. I Corinthians is not in line with the gospel accounts. What are they? Paul gives the clue. As the last to 'see' Jesus it's not the solid body appearances he is talking about but a vision in his head. That is what happened 'first to Cephas' which idea he sold to the twelve and then 500 at once, which is absolutely not what we get in the gospels (apart from Luke, but he knew Paul's letters).

I have argued (and can do it again) that the empty tomb itself shows signs of invention; Jesus had ascended and so the claim of the tomb being empty was made by early Christians. That was all, as we see in John, and that is relevant despite your effort to wave it away. The synoptic original added a handy angel waiting on cue for the women to turn up so as to explain everything. Not in John. John has the women run to the disciples and say they on't know where the body is. That contradicts the idea that the angel had told them that the body got up and went to Galilee. It gets worse, since Matthew says the women ran into Jesus, but Luke has Cleophas say that the women saw the angel but no mention of Jesus. That is lawcourt dismissal proof that Matthew made his appearance up. And it all gets worse from there.

It is a common Gospel apologetic trick to take the faithclaim that the story was written to underpin. to prove that the invented story was true. The nativities contradict totally and terminally, but apologists say it agrees the common element: 'Jesus was born in Bethlehem' - which is what the stories were written to prove. Your excuse is the perfect example of circular reasoning.

I'll go on. Cleophas comes back to hear that Jesus has appeared to Simon. This remarkable appearance is not described nor even mentioned by any other gospel but it is, of course in I Cor. and Luke was adapting the Synoptic gospel to fit it, just as he alters the angelic message to fit Paul's story that the apostles did not go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem. You just compare them.

The Jesus walks in. Not in Matthew. The disciples instead go to Galilee as instructed. Now you may say that Luke agrees with John, and the evening appearance seems similar, (but I have a theory about that) but Luke contradicts John when he says the 11 (minus Judas) were there. Total refutation of the whole 'Thomas' nonsense. You may (probably will) wave all that away. Doesn't matter; you cannot sell me, nor anyone who has had these contradictions pointed out (1) the claim that the resurrection accounts are eyewitness, reliable or supported by I Corinthians.

I know the excuses; they do not work, even without the refuting point that these witnesses would talk together and compare notes; they would not write it down in ignorance of what the others knew, nor does it wash that important things like the angelic message or Jesus appearing would simply be left out - which of course includes Mark saying nothing about any of that.

(1) he said, even though the evidence is that even non -believers stick with the Christian version, even when they have had it debunked.

[Miles]

.

............. 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]

“The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”
source:Conservative Christian NT scholar, Richard Bauckham:
____________________

Quote: They [the Gospels] were anonymously written. In fact most scholars today do not believe that the evangelists were eyewitnesses for the simple reason that their chronology of events and theological interpretations are different. The titles of the gospels were added in the second century and very well could designate the authority behind the finished gospel or the one who wrote one of the main sources of the gospel. The [Roman Catholic] Church takes no official stance on their authorship. It is important to understand that the Church by its authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit canonized these four gospels over many others that were circulated and read in the early centuries.
source
____________________

Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.
source: Oxford Annotated Bible p.1744

____________________

Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening preGospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating.
source: Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament

____________________

Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.
source:United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Gospel of John:

___________________

The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure–Jesus Christ–to confirm the faith of their communities.
source: Matthew Ferguson, doctoral candidate in Classics:

.