New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ProfessorDavey]

The details are quite different, ...

yet the same idea of desolation is there.

Which is it Spud - are they different or are they the same - you seem constantly to argue in both directions claiming that both similarities and differences are somehow proof that they were based on eye witness accounts.

Did they both come from the same source (J.C.)?

Huge leap - they may have both come from the same source, but given the time (and place) of writing it is pretty well inconceivable that that source would have been Jesus who had been dead for nigh on 40 years and lives thousands of miles away.

[jeremyp]

For those verses in particular, Luke didn't copy Mark. The details are quite different, yet the same idea of desolation is there. Did they both come from the same source (J.C.)?

If "the details are quite different", how did they all get it from the same source?

[Spud]

If "the details are quite different", how did they all get it from the same source?

Jesus could have talked about both Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation and the approach of armies. The word 'desolation' stuck in the mind of the different sources (the apostles).

One problem for a post-70 date of writing is, why did the three Synoptists say so much about not following false messiahs, not being alarmed at rumours of rebellions or natural disasters, warning them of arrest and persecution, then about fleeing the city, and keeping watch, if these had already happened?

[ProfessorDavey]

One problem for a post-70 date of writing is, why did the three Synoptists say so much about not following false messiahs, not being alarmed at rumours of rebellions or natural disasters, warning them of arrest and persecution, then about fleeing the city, and keeping watch, if these had already happened?

You might think that, but the vast majority of serious historians disagree.

But actually the date of the original writing of the gospels isn't the key here as there may have been all sorts of alterations in the decades following their writing for all kinds of purposes. So really the first point at which we can be definitive about what the gospels actually say is when we actually have fragments that can be read (or in really a complete intact version). We don't have anything of that nature until about 200AD - so we are largely in the dark for the period from the dates of the events in the gospels until their likely drafting some 40-50+ years later, and are also in the dark about edits, alterations, additions, removals from those drafts until we have actual physical written gospels a further 120+ years later again.

[Spud]

You might think that, but the vast majority of serious historians disagree.

But actually the date of the original writing of the gospels isn't the key here as there may have been all sorts of alterations in the decades following their writing for all kinds of purposes. So really the first point at which we can be definitive about what the gospels actually say is when we actually have fragments that can be read (or in really a complete intact version). We don't have anything of that nature until about 200AD - so we are largely in the dark for the period from the dates of the events in the gospels until their likely drafting some 40-50+ years later, and are also in the dark about edits, alterations, additions, removals from those drafts until we have actual physical written gospels a further 120+ years later again.

Ok, there are a lot of fragments by the looks of it, and as you say, date mostly to post-200. How similar are they to the more complete copies from the 4th century? That would tell us something about how close the fragments were to the originals.

[jeremyp]

Jesus could have talked about both Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation and the approach of armies. The word 'desolation' stuck in the mind of the different sources (the apostles).

So you're basically saying their sources all had different versions of the same event. You aren't making a good case for the accuracy of the gospels.

One problem for a post-70 date of writing is, why did the three Synoptists say so much about not following false messiahs, not being alarmed at rumours of rebellions or natural disasters, warning them of arrest and persecution, then about fleeing the city, and keeping watch, if these had already happened?

Because they had already happened. It would be a fair bet they would be happening again.

Plus of course they might have been bigging up Jesus' powers ofd prophecy. There's nothing like putting a prophecy that has already been fulfilled into the mouth of your hero from the past to make them look like a really good prophet. The writer of Daniel did a pretty good job of it in about 164BC.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok, there are a lot of fragments by the looks of it, and as you say, date mostly to post-200. How similar are they to the more complete copies from the 4th century? That would tell us something about how close the fragments were to the originals.

No it wouldn't - just because the gospels didn't change much from 200-400 doesn't meant they didn't change much from 80-200. It is extremely common for narratives to change markedly in their earliest series of iterations, but to settle on a more standard and broadly unchanging form later.

We know nothing really about how closely the fragments we have from 200 onwards align with what was written in AD80, let alone how what was written in AD80 related to what is purported to happen in AD30.

[Spud]

So you're basically saying their sources all had different versions of the same event.

Yep, since people see things from different angles, and remember different details of the same event. But similarities mixed in with the differences show they are describing the same event.

Like with the resurrection appearances: lots of differences, but also similarities, for example, when the women see Jesus, they try to touch him. This comes out in both Matthew, who says that they clasped his feet, and John, where Jesus says to Mary, "do not hold on to me". But as you say,

You aren't making a good case for the accuracy of the gospels.

Because they had already happened. It would be a fair bet they would be happening again.

Plus of course they might have been bigging up Jesus' powers ofd prophecy. There's nothing like putting a prophecy that has already been fulfilled into the mouth of your hero from the past to make them look like a really good prophet. The writer of Daniel did a pretty good job of it in about 164BC.

Are you happy to say that Daniel was canonized in 40 years, since a dead sea scrolls manuscript containing a small part of Daniel was dated to 125 BC?

[jeremyp]

Yep, since people see things from different angles, and remember different details of the same event. But similarities mixed in with the differences show they are describing the same event.

So we can't rely on any of them.

Like with the resurrection appearances: lots of differences, but also similarities, for example, when the women see Jesus, they try to touch him. This comes out in both Matthew, who says that they clasped his feet, and John, where Jesus says to Mary, "do not hold on to me".

A lot of the details of the stories of the resurrection cannot be mutually reconciled. It's not that they are different details of the same story, they are different stories.

Are you happy to say that Daniel was canonized in 40 years, since a dead sea scrolls manuscript containing a small part of Daniel was dated to 125 BC?

Some bits of Daniel might be older but the prophecies were definitely written in the 160's BC

[Spud]

So we can't rely on any of them.
A lot of the details of the stories of the resurrection cannot be mutually reconciled.

Can they be reconciled if the various witnesses got separated and arrived at the tomb at different times?

It's not that they are different details of the same story, they are different stories.

Different stories about the same event? It has to be admitted that there are many details that agree, such as the words spoken by the angel(s), eg "he is not here, he has risen, see where they laid him".

Some bits of Daniel might be older but the prophecies were definitely written in the 160's BC

...because they are prophecies?

[jeremyp]

Can they be reconciled if the various witnesses got separated and arrived at the tomb at different times?

How do you reconcile the women arriving before dawn and at dawn?

How do you reconcile the women witnessing the stone being rolled back and it already being rolled back?

How do you reconcile one man and two men being present?

That's just for starters. If you then look at the stories of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you see there are three stories (Mark originally has none) and they are all different. Then, if you look at Acts, you see Luke even walks back some of the details of his own earlier account.

Different stories about the same event? It has to be admitted that there are many details that agree, such as the words spoken by the angel(s), eg "he is not here, he has risen, see where they laid him". ...because they are prophecies?

It's quite telling the gospel accounts are similar (but with inconsistency of detail) right up to the point of the original ending of Mark. After the, each of the remaining three authors tells a different story. It's almost as if they were following Mark in general terms and all decided to make something different up for after his rather abrupt ending.

[Spud]

How do you reconcile the women arriving before dawn and at dawn?

How do you reconcile the women witnessing the stone being rolled back and it already being rolled back?

How do you reconcile one man and two men being present?

That's just for starters. If you then look at the stories of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you see there are three stories (Mark originally has none) and they are all different. Then, if you look at Acts, you see Luke even walks back some of the details of his own earlier account.

It's quite telling the gospel accounts are similar (but with inconsistency of detail) right up to the point of the original ending of Mark. After the, each of the remaining three authors tells a different story. It's almost as if they were following Mark in general terms and all decided to make something different up for after his rather abrupt ending.

Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.

[Roses]

Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.

OH DEAR!!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.

Straw ... clutch

[Dicky Underpants]

Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.

Except that Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Matthew's gospel as witnessing the angel rolling back the stone, and in Mark's gospel arrives to find it already rolled back....

[Roses]

I wonder what substance people who claim to see angels are imbibing?

[Spud]

Except that Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Matthew's gospel as witnessing the angel rolling back the stone, and in Mark's gospel arrives to find it already rolled back....

Although the interlinear of Mt 28:2 says that the angel "was sitting" on the stone, possibly implying that the action of rolling it away had taken place?
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-2.htm

[Gordon]

Although the interlinear of Mt 28:2 says that the angel "was sitting" on the stone, possibly implying that the action of rolling it away had taken place?
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-2.htm

How do you know the stone could even be 'rolled' - got a pic?

[Spud]

A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.

[Gordon]

A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.

They may well do, but how do you know the story is true? After all, a fabrication in Greek (or any language) would still be a fabrication, so you'd need to exclude the possibility of fabrication before accepting the story - so, have you, and how?

[Roses]

A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.

So what? If something defies credibility, as does much of the Bible, it is wise to be very sceptical unless it can be proved to be true.

[Dicky Underpants]

A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it.

And many do not (not even the NIV*). I suspect that the link you gave to an interlinear translation was one of those versions of which evangelicals are fond, which attempt to reconcile the glaring discrepancies between the gospels. My own interlinear Revised Standard Version of the Greek gives the simple temporal sequence of "descending...rolling back...SAT". I checked with three other modern language versions that I have, in Spanish, French and German. They all have the same sequence of tenses, ending with the simple past, meaning "SAT".
And even if it were possible to objectively ascertain which of the myriad translations were correct, this would still not negate the even more fundamental points that Gordon has made.

*I mention the NIV, because it gets up to these kind of tricks right from Genesis 2, where it mistranslates the tenses in order to try and reconcile G2 with G1.

[Spud]

And many do not (not even the NIV*). I suspect that the link you gave to an interlinear translation was one of those versions of which evangelicals are fond, which attempt to reconcile the glaring discrepancies between the gospels. My own interlinear Revised Standard Version of the Greek gives the simple temporal sequence of "descending...rolling back...SAT". I checked with three other modern language versions that I have, in Spanish, French and German. They all have the same sequence of tenses, ending with the simple past, meaning "SAT".
And even if it were possible to objectively ascertain which of the myriad translations were correct, this would still not negate the even more fundamental points that Gordon has made.

*I mention the NIV, because it gets up to these kind of tricks right from Genesis 2, where it mistranslates the tenses in order to try and reconcile G2 with G1.

Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm

[Gordon]

Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm

The above may be of academic interest, Spud, but whatever the tenses used there is still the issue of whether or not the story is true.

For example, whether I say I 'am sitting' on horse or I recently 'was sitting' on a horse requires that there was indeed a horse present, and if there was no horse then the story is false irrespective of what tense I used - now, substitute 'horse' with 'rock that could be rolled'.

After all, I could be telling porkies.
 

[Roses]

Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm

It would be sensible to QUESTION whether the less than credible things the Biblical authors have written actually happened.