New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Dicky Underpants]

We are told in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted in one day.

We are also told in Acts that Philip was told by God to go and convert an Ethiopian eunuch on the road due south of Jerusalem. After the conversion, Philip was spirited away (on a magic carpet?) to a town which lay on the coast to the west:

"And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
 But Philip was found at Azo'tus, and passing on he preached the gospel to all the towns till he came to Caesare'a."

[Dicky Underpants]

He also offended them by both healing somebody... on the Sabbath.

If the illness is severe enough, I believe that all good Jewish doctors etc are obliged to try to heal people on the Sabbath, and  have been allowed to do so from at least the mid 2nd century BCE . Unless they are anally retentive fundamentalists of the worst kind.

Many of the words of Jesus on the subject of healing are, in fact, derived from arguments used by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (of Haggadah fame), Rabbi Akiva and especially Rabbi Ishmael, who was the first to be associated with the phrase pikuach nefesh, a phrase which he apparently invented for any action that saved life at the expense of any Jewish law.

https://www.thejc.com › judaism › features › why-doctors-can-heal-on-sha...

[Spud]

If the illness is severe enough, I believe that all good Jewish doctors etc are obliged to try to heal people on the Sabbath, and  have been allowed to do so from at least the mid 2nd century BCE . Unless they are anally retentive fundamentalists of the worst kind.
 

https://www.thejc.com › judaism › features › why-doctors-can-heal-on-sha...

Your link implies that the gospel writers got their ideas from the three sages you quote (who were all from the second half of the first century AD onward), and attributed them to Jesus.

Do you have anything suggesting the debate had begun prior to the time of Jesus?

I know there was a problem with not fighting on the Sabbath, dating back to the Maccabean wars.

[Dicky Underpants]

Your link implies that the gospel writers got their ideas from the three sages you quote (who were all from the second half of the first century AD onward), and attributed them to Jesus.

Do you have anything suggesting the debate had begun prior to the time of Jesus?

I know there was a problem with not fighting on the Sabbath, dating back to the Maccabean wars.

The link contains this:

This simple interpretation finally justified healing on the Sabbath. It is, however, important to note that all through the centuries of the Jewish debate — from the mid-second century BCE to the end of the second century CE— there is evidence that the Jewish sages always allowed healing on the Sabbath day, even though this was apparently prohibited by Torah law.

In other words, it would seem that the ancient Hebrews had long had a pragmatic attitude to such matters, irrespective of what the Torah actually said. But they were obviously perplexed by this anomaly and the debate continued until the matter could be officially codified.
It does relate to the Maccabean wars, where realistic pragmatism obviously took precedence over dusty legalities. If a people weren't prepared to fight on the Sabbath, that was an invitation to their enemies to wipe them out.

Not sure whether the Sanhedrin (which apparently contained both Pharisees and Sadducees) would have been quite so uptight about 'infringements' of the Torah, when it was able to accommodate people with such diverse views on the resurrection of the dead, for example.

[Spud]

If the illness is severe enough, I believe that all good Jewish doctors etc are obliged to try to heal people on the Sabbath, and  have been allowed to do so from at least the mid 2nd century BCE . Unless they are anally retentive fundamentalists of the worst kind.
 

https://www.thejc.com › judaism › features › why-doctors-can-heal-on-sha...

I missed that part of the quote, so thanks. I had a look at what some online commentaries had to say about this, and found that they do acknowledge that the duty to heal on the Sabbath, if as you say the illness is severe enough, was recognized in Jesus' day.
What is clear is that the people whom Jesus healed on the Sabbath (man with a withered hand man born blind, healing by the pool) could have waited until the next day. As Meyer puts it, "The traditions forbade healing on the Sabbath, except in cases where life was in danger."
So it seems they would have used this as a way of accusing him.

[Roses]

I missed that part of the quote, so thanks. I had a look at what some online commentaries had to say about this, and found that they do acknowledge that the duty to heal on the Sabbath, if as you say the illness is severe enough, was recognized in Jesus' day.
What is clear is that the people whom Jesus healed on the Sabbath (man with a withered hand man born blind, healing by the pool) could have waited until the next day. As Meyer puts it, "The traditions forbade healing on the Sabbath, except in cases where life was in danger."
So it seems they would have used this as a way of accusing him.

The healings attributed to Jesus, are not credible and more than likely didn't happen.

[Spud]

As I have pointed out on many occasions soldiers claimed to have actually seen the Angel of Mons when it was merely a story created by an author.

What about Simeon, who meets Joseph and Mary and sees the baby Jesus... More evidence that Luke is relying on eyewitnesses! (Edit: if second or third hand, as Simeon would have died soon after this)

[jeremyp]

What about Simeon, who meets Joseph and Mary and sees the baby Jesus... More evidence that Luke is relying on eyewitnesses! (Edit: if second or third hand, as Simeon would have died soon after this)

Second hand and eye witness are mutually exclusive.

[Spud]

Second hand and eye witness are mutually exclusive.

The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw. Of course this doesn't prove he is genuine, but it is what we'd expect if he was.

[Gordon]

The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw. Of course this doesn't prove he is genuine, but it is what we'd expect if he was.

He may have been genuine and convincing, in the expectation that others would accept his account, and he may well have believed he was telling the truth - however, he could have been mistaken and honestly wrong, or he could have been lying for Jesus: from this distance how could you ever be sure enough so as to eliminate the risks of mistakes or lies?

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw. Of course this doesn't prove he is genuine, but it is what we'd expect if he was.

So what, just because Luke claims, when writing 60 or more years after the event, that his writings are based on eye witness accounts doesn't mean they are. And even if they did trace back to eye witnesses the gap in time (and life expectancy plus geographic distance between events and writing) means they'd not be based on eye witnesses but second, third or more hand. And as such Luke cannot know himself whether the stories he'd heard trace back to eye witnesses so his very claim in unverifiable, even by himself.

So Luke saying that his gospel is based on eye witnesses provides no actual evidence that it did.

[Spud]

So Luke saying that his gospel is based on eye witnesses provides no actual evidence that it did.

It's not conclusive evidence, but think from a jury's perspective. If a witness initially claims he saw an event but in a written statement about it, says nothing about what he saw, you would not trust his initial claim.
Internal evidence from Acts and Luke's gospel suggests the gospel was written just before AD 60.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not conclusive evidence,

It isn't evidence at all - anyone can make any claim regardless of whether it is true or not. And frankly how could Luke know given that he is generations away from the event in time and thousands of miles in geography.

but think from a jury's perspective. If a witness initially claims he saw an event but in a written statement about it, says nothing about what he saw, you would not trust his initial claim.

If someone who was very clearly not a witness came forward about an event from 1960 and made a claim about that event, it would be laughed out of court by any Jury without independent corroboratory evidence.

Internal evidence from Acts and Luke's gospel suggests the gospel was written just before AD 60.

The consensus view amongst historians is that Luke was written about AD80-90, while others claim even later, perhaps as late as 110.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw.

But Luke wasn't there so at best he is taking on trust the claim of people he spoke to that they were eye witnesses. Far more likely he is taking on trust people he spoke to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust the word of other people they had spoken to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust people they had spoken to who claimed to have been eyewitnesses.

And guess what - people lie about being present at events:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/four-dozen-people-witness-the-gig-that-changed-the-world

In the words of the inimitable Oyster band: 'I met a man whose brother said he knew a man who knew the Oxford girl'

[Robbie]

But Luke wasn't there so at best he is taking on trust the claim of people he spoke to that they were eye witnesses. Far more likely he is taking on trust people he spoke to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust the word of other people they had spoked to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust people they had spoken to who claimed to have been eyewitnesses.

And guess what - people lie about being present at events:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/four-dozen-people-witness-the-gig-that-changed-the-world

In the words of the inimitable Oyster band: 'I met a man whose brother said he knew a man who knew the Oxford girl'

In a nutshell! Fake news even back in those days.

What you have said is pretty relevant to the Harry and Meghan thread, full of tittle tattle and speculation, nothing concrete. Daily Mail fodder, that thread is Mumsnet level.

[jeremyp]

Just so we all know what we are talking about, here is Luke's introduction:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

When a Christian makes a claim about something in the Bible, it is always wise to check the reference and the surrounding context.

There's nothing in the above that confirms that Luke ever spoke to any eye witnesses. In fact, the phrase "... handed on to us..." suggests to me that the eye witnesses were gone by the time Luke wrote his account. This fits well with the normal dating of Luke to the 80's or 90's.

[Spud]

Just so we all know what we are talking about, here is Luke's introduction:

When a Christian makes a claim about something in the Bible, it is always wise to check the reference and the surrounding context.

There's nothing in the above that confirms that Luke ever spoke to any eye witnesses. In fact, the phrase "... handed on to us..." suggests to me that the eye witnesses were gone by the time Luke wrote his account. This fits well with the normal dating of Luke to the 80's or 90's.

The eyewitnesses being gone (dead) doesn't preclude them being his source. Luke describes three generations in his introduction: the eyewitnesses, the 'us' to whom the eyewitnesses delivered the word, and Theophilus, who presumably hadn't met the eyewitnesses and for whom this account was written in order that he could be certain of what he had been told. (The 'us' among whom these things had been accomplished seems to include everyone).

[jeremyp]

The eyewitnesses being gone (dead) doesn't preclude them being his source.

Yes it does. They are dead. How can they be his source? It is possible he had writings that purported to be by them, but how would he know. In fact, we do know his main source was Mark. Not an eye witness even according to tradition.

[Spud]

Yes it does. They are dead. How can they be his source? It is possible he had writings that purported to be by them, but how would he know. In fact, we do know his main source was Mark. Not an eye witness even according to tradition.

It's quite important to understand what Luke means. I think he means that many have set about writing down what they have been told by the eyewitnesses, and that it seemed good for him to do so too, as he has "been aquatinted with all things from the first", ie he knows the original testimony. Meyer says,

By ἩΜῖΝ ['to us'] the writer places himself in the second generation; the first were the immediate disciples of Christ, οἱ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται [eyewitnesses and servants of the word].

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/luke/1.htm

[ProfessorDavey]

It's quite important to understand what Luke means.

But we have no real idea what he means as he has been dead for 2000 years, give or take.

And regardless of what he means what we need to know is what is actually the case in terms of the link between Luke's writing and original eye witnesses to the events he claims happened. We do not know that and nor could Luke as the time difference and geographical distance means it is pretty well impossible for him to have any meaningful ideas of the route between, for example the shepherds he claimed saw angels, and his writing.

Something else which I don't think has been mentioned is the additional time before any verifiable fragments of gospels exist and even the writing of the gospels. The earliest know fragment of Luke's gospel is believed to date from around 175-225 (and it is just a small fragment) - so even if we accept that Luke originally write his gospel in about 90AD we have no meaningful idea as to how that writing was edited, altered, amended etc until the point at which we have actual written fragments, hundreds of years later.

[Spud]

But we have no real idea what he means as he has been dead for 2000 years, give or take.

And regardless of what he means what we need to know is what is actually the case in terms of the link between Luke's writing and original eye witnesses to the events he claims happened. We do not know that and nor could Luke as the time difference and geographical distance means it is pretty well impossible for him to have any meaningful ideas of the route between, for example the shepherds he claimed saw angels, and his writing.

What about if he wrote Luke around 58 and then Acts a year or two after 60 when Paul was in Rome. Jesus' mother may have been alive, and he may have had some contact with her, or at least access to documents containing her testimony given his inclusion of the song she wrote. She could have provided the information about the shepherds.

Something else which I don't think has been mentioned is the additional time before any verifiable fragments of gospels exist and even the writing of the gospels. The earliest know fragment of Luke's gospel is believed to date from around 175-225 (and it is just a small fragment) - so even if we accept that Luke originally write his gospel in about 90AD we have no meaningful idea as to how that writing was edited, altered, amended etc until the point at which we have actual written fragments, hundreds of years later.

But there are events we would expect Luke to have included had he written later, because they were significant for the Church and for the Jewish nation. The events of the mid 60s to 70AD, the deaths of Peter and Paul, are the obvious ones that Luke is silent about.

[ProfessorDavey]

What about if he wrote Luke around 58 and then Acts a year or two after 60 when Paul was in Rome. Jesus' mother may have been alive, and he may have had some contact with her, or at least access to documents containing her testimony given his inclusion of the song she wrote. She could have provided the information about the shepherds.

But there are events we would expect Luke to have included had he written later, because they were significant for the Church and for the Jewish nation. The events of the mid 60s to 70AD, the deaths of Peter and Paul, are the obvious ones that Luke is silent about.

Take it up with the professionals - in other words proper historians (not christian apologists) who believe the evidence supports Luke (or rather the original version of Luke) being written 80AD at the earliest - the consensus being 80-90, but with some historians arguing as late as 110.

But Mary wasn't there when the shepherds apparently met the angel, was she. She most certainly wasn't an eye witness to that purported event.

[jeremyp]

It's quite important to understand what Luke means. I think he means that many have set about writing down what they have been told by the eyewitnesses, and that it seemed good for him to do so too

But we know he copied Mark's writing. Mark wasn't an eye witness.

[jeremyp]

What about if he wrote Luke around 58 and then Acts a year or two after 60 when Paul was in Rome. Jesus' mother may have been alive, and he may have had some contact with her, or at least access to documents containing her testimony given his inclusion of the song she wrote. She could have provided the information about the shepherds.

I see a lot of speculation and "what ifs" there.

But there are events we would expect Luke to have included had he written later, because they were significant for the Church and for the Jewish nation. The events of the mid 60s to 70AD, the deaths of Peter and Paul, are the obvious ones that Luke is silent about.

Arguably he did know about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul? When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?

[Spud]

I see a lot of speculation and "what ifs" there.

Absolutely.

Arguably he did know about the destruction of Jerusalem.

So wouldn't he be likely to mention it?

Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul? When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?

In 2 Tim 4:6 Paul writes that he already is being poured out like a drink offering and the time has come for his departure. He goes on to say, v 11, that 'only Luke is with me'.
Luke was also with him earlier, when he sent his greetings to the Colossians (2 Col 4:14).
Two clues that Luke wrote his gospel under Paul's influence are:
- 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 cf Luke 22:17-20 where there are several similar phrases in their descriptions of the last supper.
- Luke 24:34 cf 1 Corinthians 16:4,5 where they both mention that Peter was the first man to whom Jesus appeared after he rose.
So Luke is the author of Luke/Acts and journeyed with Paul, who had met the apostles. He stayed with Paul during his imprisonment, up until the time Paul was aware of his impending execution. Luke concludes Acts abruptly without saying what happened to Paul after the two year house arrest.
Luke could, then, have waited a long time to write Acts, but we know that he wrote his gospel before that, so it was some time during Luke's life. The main point is that he was in the inner circle of Paul's companions from Acts 16 onwards. He met the brothers, the elders and James in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18). Notably he appears to have witnessed Paul bringing Eutychus back to life (Acts 19:10). Surely, then, he had access to eyewitness accounts, oral and written, and witnessed a miracle himself.