New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[jeremyp]

Absolutely.So wouldn't he be likely to mention it?

He did mention it.

Read chapter 21.

In 2 Tim 4:6 Paul writes

No he doesn't. Somebody pretending to be 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'.

And your evidence that this Luke was the one who wrote the gospel is...?

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.

You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions:

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?

You might think you have answered the first one but there is really no evidence that the Luke you are talking about is also the one that wrote the gospel and Acts. In fact, as Acts gets so many of the details of Paul's travels wrong, we can rule its author out as one of Paul's travelling companions.

[Spud]

He did mention it.

Read chapter 21.

Sorry, I can't see any mention of it.

No he doesn't. Somebody pretending to be Paul writes.
And your evidence that this Luke was the one who wrote the gospel is...?
You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions:

Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul?

Because he knew about other significant events, like Stephen and James' deaths. He wouldn't know about the deaths of Peter and Paul if he brought his account up to date while Paul's trial was concluding.

When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?

You might think you have answered the first one but there is really no evidence that the Luke you are talking about is also the one that wrote the gospel and Acts. In fact, as Acts gets so many of the details of Paul's travels wrong, we can rule its author out as one of Paul's travelling companions.

I gave evidence that the author of Luke was Luke. He was the only one with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11), and so the only person who could say what Paul did there, at the end of Acts. Your view depends on 2 Timothy being made up.

[Dicky Underpants]

I gave evidence that the author of Luke was Luke. He was the only one with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11), and so the only person who could say what Paul did there, at the end of Acts. Your view depends on 2 Timothy being made up.

Paul's travels in Acts contradicted by his own words in Galatians 1:16.

[Spud]

Paul's travels in Acts contradicted by his own words in Galatians 1:16.

Paul in Galatians is talking about conferring with the apostles about something specific. Luke is talking about meeting them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Paul in Galatians is talking about conferring with the apostles about something specific. Luke is talking about meeting them.

How on earth do you know that Spud - have you chatted to the pair of them about their intentions when writing those sections?

[Spud]

How on earth do you know that Spud - have you chatted to the pair of them about their intentions when writing those sections?

I googled "Galatians 1 contradicts Acts"

[ippy]

How on earth do you know that Spud - have you chatted to the pair of them about their intentions when writing those sections?

I have to go along with this comment of yours Proff, this sort of statement of Spud's certainly pushes up the eyebrows and makes a few more wrinkles in the brow and I can fully understand your incredulity.

Where this kind of comment is made it gives me the impression he really does think he actually was there, if this wasn't Spud's intention it certainly comes over just as you have described, even though Spud seems to switch over to other planet mode whenever religion is mentioned surely nobody catches religion as badly as that?

ippy   

[ProfessorDavey]

I googled "Galatians 1 contradicts Acts"

[jeremyp]

Sorry, I can't see any mention of it.

It's right there:

When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, ‘As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.’

...

‘Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom;

...

‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it,

...

Because he knew about other significant events, like Stephen and James' deaths. He wouldn't know about the deaths of Peter and Paul if he brought his account up to date while Paul's trial was concluding.

What if Peter and Paul both just retired and died in old age?

I gave evidence that the author of Luke was Luke.

No you didn't. You gave evidence that Paul knew somebody called Luke. You gave no evidence that Luke-that-Paul-knew wrote the gospel and Acts.

He was the only one with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11), and so the only person who could say what Paul did there, at the end of Acts.

Your view depends on 2 Timothy being made up.

It certainly wasn't written by Paul.

You still haven't answered my questions:

When did Peter and Paul die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?

I'm going to add "how did they die?" to the list.

[jeremyp]

Paul in Galatians is talking about conferring with the apostles about something specific. Luke is talking about meeting them.

But the travels don't work whatever Paul was talking about. You can't reconcile Paul's movements as described by himself with his movements as described in Acts.

[jeremyp]

Spud, I recommend you watch this lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQaOlxhg8xg&list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0&index=5

It goes into the contradictions between Galatians and Acts in some detail. The case is pretty damning, I'm afraid.

[Spud]

It's right there:

Pants, I was looking at Acts 21. Are you saying that because Luke has different wording (when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies instead of when you see the abomination) he knew what had happened? Fair point, but it could be that he had a different, more specific, source to Matthew and Mark.

It certainly wasn't written by Paul.

Even if it wasn't, 2 Timothy claims to give historical fact and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand.

You still haven't answered my questions:

When did Peter and Paul die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?

I'm going to add "how did they die?" to the list.

I realize there is no biblical evidence for a date of either, only a reference in John 21 to Peter's death as a martyr and Paul's anticipation of his death in 2 Timothy.

All the above does not prove that the author of Luke and Acts didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts.

[ProfessorDavey]

All the above does not prove that the author of Luke and Acts didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts.

It isn't for us to prove that they didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts, it is for you to provide that they did.

[ippy]

It isn't for us to prove that they didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts, it is for you to provide that they did.

Precisely!

ippy.

[jeremyp]

It isn't for us to prove that they didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts, it is for you to provide that they did.

Bingo.

But even though the above is true, the evidence against Luke having eye witness sources is pretty strong. Luke's main source is Mark and, even in Christian tradition, Mark was not an eye witness. Also, Acts of the Apostles gets key facts surrounding Paul's travels wrong. You'd think Paul's fellow traveller would be able to get these things right.

[Spud]

Spud, I recommend you watch this lecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQaOlxhg8xg&list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0&index=5

It goes into the contradictions between Galatians and Acts in some detail. The case is pretty damning, I'm afraid.

Thanks for the link. I watched three quarters of it, as the volume's not too good. Enough to get his gist. So here's the thing. At the tomb does the angel say, "he is not here, he is risen" or does he say "he is risen, he is not here"? The gospel writers contradict each other!!! They must be wrong, it's all false!!! Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?
A more sensible approach is to look for similarities in the different reports. If both newspapers got the name of the aircraft or motorway right, we would be able to be fairly certain that the incident happened. The fact that three different authors record similar sayings by angels at the tomb suggests that the women saw someone who reported that Jesus was not there and was alive, but that the authors differ in the minor details for some reason.
Regarding Paul's account versus Luke's of his conversion and journeys. Don't just pick out the contradictions and assume Luke was written decades later by someone else. It's normal for witnesses to disagree on details. Look for similarities, like Damascus, Jerusalem. Even some verses in Luke/Acts are word for word the same as in Paul's letters.

Bingo.

But even though the above is true, the evidence against Luke having eye witness sources is pretty strong. Luke's main source is Mark and, even in Christian tradition, Mark was not an eye witness. Also, Acts of the Apostles gets key facts surrounding Paul's travels wrong. You'd think Paul's fellow traveller would be able to get these things right.

But Luke didn't travel with Paul until Acts 16. He wasn't there at his conversion and subsequent activity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?

But we aren't talking about a series of reports the next day, but a series of reports that first appeared perhaps 50-80 years later. Also a plane crash or motorway accident are perfectly plausible things that we know can happen so we may take a starting presumption of accepting the basic notion - a dead man suddenly coming alive again is not a plausible occurrence so our starting point should not be to accept the basic notion. Finally we know the writers of the gospels are highly partial - they aren't a neutral observer.

So the equivalent would be reports from people who were passionate supporters of a particular aircraft manufacture who believe that no-one could ever die on one of their planes claiming that although one of their planes crashed from 30,000 ft that no-one died. In other words an implausible claim from a partial reporter - exactly what we see in the gospels.

[Gordon]

So here's the thing. At the tomb does the angel say, "he is not here, he is risen" or does he say "he is risen, he is not here"? The gospel writers contradict each other!!! They must be wrong, it's all false!!! Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?

Spud

Are you serious?

Where there has been a plane crash there is evidence: the plane, the crew and passengers, the airport, the flight plan, air traffic control and the wreckage - so even if at some point there are confused or inaccurate reports the details are knowable. Claims about angels that are made post hoc, are based on anecdotal reports of uncertain provenance and where the risks of mistakes or lies are obvious and not comparable - you can't even address the risks of mistake or lies (and that is without dealing with the issue of evidence for angels).   

A more sensible approach is to look for similarities in the different reports. If both newspapers got the name of the aircraft or motorway right, we would be able to be fairly certain that the incident happened. The fact that three different authors record similar sayings by angels at the tomb suggests that the women saw someone who reported that Jesus was not there and was alive, but that the authors differ in the minor details for some reason.

You're effectively attempting to compare apples with concrete mixers: an approach that is doomed to failure for fairly obvious reasons.

[jeremyp]

Thanks for the link. I watched three quarters of it, as the volume's not too good. Enough to get his gist. So here's the thing. At the tomb does the angel say, "he is not here, he is risen" or does he say "he is risen, he is not here"? The gospel writers contradict each other!!! They must be wrong, it's all false!!! Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?

I asked you to watch the lecture to get an idea of how Acts contradicts Paul's own writings, the resurrection stories are a different can of worms which we can get into if you like.

A more sensible approach is to look for similarities in the different reports. If both newspapers got the name of the aircraft or motorway right, we would be able to be fairly certain that the incident happened. The fact that three different authors record similar sayings by angels at the tomb suggests that the women saw someone who reported that Jesus was not there and was alive, but that the authors differ in the minor details for some reason.

Yes, they are not eye witnesses and the accounts they received have been distorted either by the eye witnesses or the retelling.

Except it doesn't really make sense. Luke, for example, had the text of Mark or Matthew to copy off, but he still made changes. It suggests he wasn't as interested in getting the facts 100% correct so much as pushing his own theology.

Regarding Paul's account versus Luke's of his conversion and journeys. Don't just pick out the contradictions and assume Luke was written decades later by someone else. It's normal for witnesses to disagree on details. Look for similarities, like Damascus, Jerusalem. Even some verses in Luke/Acts are word for word the same as in Paul's letters.

We are not talking about details, we are talking about Pul's whole itinerary.

But Luke didn't travel with Paul until Acts 16. He wasn't there at his conversion and subsequent activity.

So your solution is that Acts, at least before chapter 16, is unreliable.

[Spud]

So your solution is that Acts, at least before chapter 16, is unreliable.

Unreliable if you want the exact, precise details- yes, since Luke's source for that part of Acts may not have been Paul himself.

As I mentioned above, the apparent contradictions could be due to differences in context. Paul is specifically refuting the idea that his gospel was second hand, taught him by the apostles. Luke however is showing how Paul's preaching in Damascus was given as evidence to the apostles that he had been converted.

Some details Paul gives are missing from Luke's account. But some are included, such as staying in Damascus, a visit later on to see Peter in Jerusalem, and being sent off to Tarsus (Acts 9:30, cf Gal 1:30, "Then I went to Syria and Cilicia." Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia). Acts 9 also agrees with Galatians 1:22, which refers to the churches in Judea, as opposed to just Jerusalem.

Paul says in Galatians 2 that he was in Jerusalem 14 years later, with Barnabas. The details he gives here appear to confirm Luke's story in Acts 15.

I know there are details from both versions missing from the other, but different sources would have recalled different things, and as I say, the contexts of the two are different.

[jeremyp]

Unreliable if you want the exact, precise details- yes, since Luke's source for that part of Acts may not have been Paul himself.

So if Acts 1-15 is unreliable, we can assume the same shoddy scholarship went into the gospel. After all the gospel writer never tells us his sources for the first half of Acts are unreliable, why should we believer his sources for any of the rest are reliable?

As I mentioned above, the apparent contradictions could be due to differences in context. Paul is specifically refuting the idea that his gospel was second hand, taught him by the apostles. Luke however is showing how Paul's preaching in Damascus was given as evidence to the apostles that he had been converted.

Why would that lead Luke to make up facts about Paul's travels?

I know there are details from both versions missing from the other, but different sources would have recalled different things, and as I say, the contexts of the two are different.

You need to watch the lecture I linked and play closer attention to it this time. The time line of Paul cannot be reconciled with that of Luke.

Also, what evidence do you have that the writer of Acts ever knew Paul personally?

[Spud]

So if Acts 1-15 is unreliable, we can assume the same shoddy scholarship went into the gospel. After all the gospel writer never tells us his sources for the first half of Acts are unreliable, why should we believer his sources for any of the rest are reliable?
Why would that lead Luke to make up facts about Paul's travels?
You need to watch the lecture I linked and play closer attention to it this time. The time line of Paul cannot be reconciled with that of Luke.

The gentleman in the video thinks the lack of a reference in Galatians to Saul persecuting the church in Jerusalem, means that Saul didn't ever go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion, and therefore that Luke is wrong in saying Saul obtained letters from the high priest (in Jerusalem) in order to arrest Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:2). He gets this idea by the phrase, "later I returned to Damascus" (Gal. 1:17) which he says indicates that Saul was nowhere except in Damascus. But the verb 'returned' is not to be interpreted as saying that Saul was only in Damascus before going to Arabia, so that he was not in Jerusalem until three years later. Instead it refers back to Paul's being called on the road to Damascus, which he doesn't describe and which apparently the Galatians knew about already.

Luke is not "making up facts about Paul's travels": Paul just omits to mention going to Jerusalem to obtain the letters from the high priest.

Also, what evidence do you have that the writer of Acts ever knew Paul personally?

The "we" in the narrative from Acts 16 onward (possibly not conclusive evidence though).

[jeremyp]

The gentleman in the video thinks the lack of a reference in Galatians to Saul persecuting the church in Jerusalem, means that Saul didn't ever go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion, and therefore that Luke is wrong in saying Saul obtained letters from the high priest (in Jerusalem) in order to arrest Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:2). He gets this idea by the phrase, "later I returned to Damascus" (Gal. 1:17) which he says indicates that Saul was nowhere except in Damascus. But the verb 'returned' is not to be interpreted as saying that Saul was only in Damascus before going to Arabia, so that he was not in Jerusalem until three years later. Instead it refers back to Paul's being called on the road to Damascus, which he doesn't describe and which apparently the Galatians knew about already.

Luke is not "making up facts about Paul's travels": Paul just omits to mention going to Jerusalem to obtain the letters from the high priest.

You still aren't understanding the lecture. The events after Paul's conversion are not reconcilable.

The "we" in the narrative from Acts 16 onward (possibly not conclusive evidence though).

To say the least.

Do you think The Eagle Has Landed is truth or fiction?

[Spud]

You still aren't understanding the lecture. The events after Paul's conversion are not reconcilable.To say the least.

Do you think The Eagle Has Landed is truth or fiction?

Can we go one step at a time, then? How about we start with the chronology of Saul's trip to Arabia? The lecturer knows the story like the back of his hand, but I don't.

So I found Meyer's commentary helpful because it goes word by word through the NT, in the Greek.

Meyer looks at possible places where the trip to Arabia could be inserted in the Acts 9 narrative, and concludes that from verses 18-22 the text is too continuous to allow for this - Saul is in Damascus with the disciples for a short time, then is described preaching among the Jews that Jesus is the Son of God and Christ.

Then Luke says, 'after many days' (9:23) which is a phrase that he uses elsewhere to mean an indefinite period, which he may or may not know the exact length of - in Acts 18:11,18 it refers to Paul's year-and-a-half stay in Corinth. Meyer says that this is where the trip to Arabia and the rest of the three year period before going to Jerusalem, would fit, with the plot to kill him occurring near the end of it.

Paul's mission to the Gentiles is not Luke's focus in Acts 9. Not until after the Peter's vision, and the worldwide famine, was Paul commissioned to go to them. Saul is shown to be preaching to Jews in Damascus and Jerusalem, but in Galatians his own awareness of his calling is immediate, so that he describes his trip to Arabia as immediate.

On top of all this, we have confirmation that Luke's account is accurate in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. "In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands."

This King Aretas was king of the Nabateans, which was apparently he Arabia to which Paul went.

[Spud]

NB when Saul preaches to the Jews in Damascus, he shows that he doesn't wait around to be given the go ahead by the apostles. He baffles the Jews by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

Thus Luke's account agrees with Paul's claim that he didn't consult anyone about his gospel.