New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is that the original author would have been writing so that each clause is linked in some way with the previous one. A later copier, wanting to emphasize a particular detail or shorten the material, would look disjointed in places where he had rearranged or omitted stuff.

Isn't that exactly what you claimed, that the ordering in Mark is disjointed. So thanks very much you had just provided corroboration for the notion of copying error.

Of interest, while Mark is considered to be the first gospel written there are very few early copies or fragments. So I'm not sure when we actually have the first fragment with this ordering of Mark 16:6, I think no earlier than 300-400AD. Huge amounts of time for copying errors etc to creep in.

[Spud]

Not necessarily - it depends on their level of engagement with the events. It is perfectly likely that someone walking past at the time looking at their phone with headphones on would be blissfully unaware that a cyclist had even slipped.

The gospels emphasize that the women saw where the body was laid, so we can be confident on a high level of engagement with the events.
What if two eyewitnesses to the accident gave independent statements without consulting each other and agreed on what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, while disagreeing on where in the road he was? We could be more confident that they both heard the accident, and having looked around, possibly at different times, saw the cyclist on the ground. So Matthew and Luke agree on what the women heard, "he is not here, he has risen" and some other words, but disagree on what they saw because, as Luke says, they bowed down and looked at the ground. That they focus on different aspects of the story (guards, explaining scripture fulfillment) shows they wrote independently, but their agreement on the angels' words shows their sources witnessed the same event. We can thus know that the tomb was empty and that they had seen someone who was dazzling white and told them Jesus had risen.

err before even engaging on the notion of angels you'll need to provide evidence that they even exist. The equivalent in my analogy would be an eye witness claiming that the cyclist didn't in fact slip on the ice, but was tripped by a unicorn.

Yes I realize I've made assumptions, angels existing, no copying errors etc. neither of which I can prove. But is it unreasonable to set out to falsify theories such as that Matthew embellished Mark?

They might do, but an empty grave provides no meaningful evidence for a resurrection as there are huge numbers of plausible reasons why people might find a grave empty, none of which involve resurrection.

So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.

[Spud]

Isn't that exactly what you claimed, that the ordering in Mark is disjointed. So thanks very much you had just provided corroboration for the notion of copying error.

In Mark's case, no because (assuming the gospels were not all written independently, being based on oral tradition) he deliberately changed the order, not in error.

Of interest, while Mark is considered to be the first gospel written there are very few early copies or fragments. So I'm not sure when we actually have the first fragment with this ordering of Mark 16:6, I think no earlier than 300-400AD. Huge amounts of time for copying errors etc to creep in.

Fair enough.

[Roses]

The gospels emphasize that the women saw where the body was laid, so we can be confident on a high level of engagement with the events.
What if two eyewitnesses to the accident gave independent statements without consulting each other and agreed on what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, while disagreeing on where in the road he was? We could be more confident that they both heard the accident, and having looked around, possibly at different times, saw the cyclist on the ground. So Matthew and Luke agree on what the women heard, "he is not here, he has risen" and some other words, but disagree on what they saw because, as Luke says, they bowed down and looked at the ground. That they focus on different aspects of the story (guards, explaining scripture fulfillment) shows they wrote independently, but their agreement on the angels' words shows their sources witnessed the same event. We can thus know that the tomb was empty and that they had seen someone who was dazzling white and told them Jesus had risen.Yes I realize I've made assumptions, angels existing, no copying errors etc. neither of which I can prove. But is it unreasonable to set out to falsify theories such as that Matthew embellished Mark?So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.

You can't rely on the gospels to give you reliable factual information, they were written well after Jesus was dead, and no doubt most of his followers were dead too.

[ProfessorDavey]

In Mark's case, no because (assuming the gospels were not all written independently, being based on oral tradition) he deliberately changed the order, not in error.

Sorry Spud, you do know and cannot know this, because:

1. The earliest fragments containing the wording in this order are from about 300AD and you do not and cannot know how that relates to what was originally written.

2. Even if we assume the original had the wording in that order you do no and cannot know Mark's motivation in writing it in that order - indeed we don't even know who Mark was.

Further you are assuming he changed the order, therefore was basing his origin on earlier oral or written tradition with a different order - you have no evidence for this.

[ProfessorDavey]

What if two eyewitnesses to the accident gave independent statements without consulting each other and agreed on what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, while disagreeing on where in the road he was? We could be more confident that they both heard the accident, and having looked around, possibly at different times, saw the cyclist on the ground. So Matthew and Luke agree on what the women heard, "he is not here, he has risen" and some other words, but disagree on what they saw because, as Luke says, they bowed down and looked at the ground. That they focus on different aspects of the story (guards, explaining scripture fulfillment) shows they wrote independently, but their agreement on the angels' words shows their sources witnessed the same event. We can thus know that the tomb was empty and that they had seen someone who was dazzling white and told them Jesus had risen.Yes I realize I've made assumptions, angels existing, no copying errors etc. neither of which I can prove. But is it unreasonable to set out to falsify theories such as that Matthew embellished Mark?So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.

I'm sorry Spud, but your level of credulity verges on gullibility.

The equivalent example of the bike would be if in 300 years time we read a newly written fragment of a document which we believe is a multiple generation hand copied version of a document written in 2080 (but we have nothing to base anything on between 2080 and 2300 purporting to claim to know what people said at an event today, well it would be laughed out of court.

People (now and then) do not have photographic and perfect memories which is why the 'direct quotes' in the bible are so totally unbelievable - some of which, let's not forget a written about behind closed doors, quasi private events where there was no-one around to report what was said - e.g. gabriel and mary, angel and shepherds. There is simply no way that the purported words could have been accurately recorded and transmitted unaltered across (in these cases) 80-90 years. It is simply not credible.

[ProfessorDavey]

So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.

You are so desperate to believe things despite there being no credible evidence. This, I suspect, is because you put your existing belief in christianity above any rational judgement on evidence.

But just to check that you aren't being even handed and believing any miraculous claim regardless of the evidence (or lack therefore), do you apply the same judgement to the following which comes from the Buddhist tradition:

'Ichadon prophesied to the king that at his execution a wonderful miracle would convince the opposing court faction of Buddhism's power. Ichadon's scheme went as planned, and the opposing officials took the bait. When Ichadon was executed on the 15th day of the 9th month in 527, his prophecy was fulfilled; the earth shook, the sun was darkened, beautiful flowers rained from the sky, his severed head flew to the sacred Geumgang mountains, and milk instead of blood sprayed 100 feet in the air from his beheaded corpse.'

Note that the recording of these purported events was much more contemporaneous to the date of the events than for the gospels and there is far more objective, independent contemporaneous evidence about who Ichadon was, what he did etc etc than there is for Jesus.

So I presume you also accept that his head did fly to mountains and milk flowed from his severed neck - or are you merely cherry picking as you aren't actually interested in evidence, merely you pre-judged un-evidenced belief.

[ippy]

You are so desperate to believe things despite there being no credible evidence. This, I suspect, is because you put your existing belief in christianity above any rational judgement on evidence.

But just to check that you aren't being even handed and believing any miraculous claim regardless of the evidence (or lack therefore), do you apply the same judgement to the following which comes from the Buddhist tradition:

'Ichadon prophesied to the king that at his execution a wonderful miracle would convince the opposing court faction of Buddhism's power. Ichadon's scheme went as planned, and the opposing officials took the bait. When Ichadon was executed on the 15th day of the 9th month in 527, his prophecy was fulfilled; the earth shook, the sun was darkened, beautiful flowers rained from the sky, his severed head flew to the sacred Geumgang mountains, and milk instead of blood sprayed 100 feet in the air from his beheaded corpse.'

Note that the recording of these purported events was much more contemporaneous to the date of the events than for the gospels and there is far more objective, independent contemporaneous evidence about who Ichadon was, what he did etc etc than there is for Jesus.

So I presume you also accept that his head did fly to mountains and milk flowed from his severed neck - or are you merely cherry picking as you aren't actually interested in evidence, merely you pre-judged un-evidenced belief.

When these believers are so ingrained into their narrow little worlds as Spud seems to be it usually dates back to indoctrination somewhere in their earlier years otherwise most would take a more rational course.

ippy.

[Spud]

You are so desperate to believe things despite there being no credible evidence. This, I suspect, is because you put your existing belief in christianity above any rational judgement on evidence.

But just to check that you aren't being even handed and believing any miraculous claim regardless of the evidence (or lack therefore), do you apply the same judgement to the following which comes from the Buddhist tradition:

'Ichadon prophesied to the king that at his execution a wonderful miracle would convince the opposing court faction of Buddhism's power. Ichadon's scheme went as planned, and the opposing officials took the bait. When Ichadon was executed on the 15th day of the 9th month in 527, his prophecy was fulfilled; the earth shook, the sun was darkened, beautiful flowers rained from the sky, his severed head flew to the sacred Geumgang mountains, and milk instead of blood sprayed 100 feet in the air from his beheaded corpse.'

Note that the recording of these purported events was much more contemporaneous to the date of the events than for the gospels and there is far more objective, independent contemporaneous evidence about who Ichadon was, what he did etc etc than there is for Jesus.

So I presume you also accept that his head did fly to mountains and milk flowed from his severed neck - or are you merely cherry picking as you aren't actually interested in evidence, merely you pre-judged un-evidenced belief.

Well, as you know, I believe the gospels and new testament are the evidence for Christianity. The alternatives to their being true are mistakes or lies, neither of which can be demonstrated - you just have to assume mistakes or lies. You call this the Christian apologist's game... no, it's just looking at the evidence. Can you provide any documentation of the miracle associated with this Buddhist monk?

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, as you know, I believe the gospels and new testament are the evidence for Christianity. The alternatives to their being true are mistakes or lies, neither of which can be demonstrated - you just have to assume mistakes or lies. You call this the Christian apologist's game... no, it's just looking at the evidence.

But there is no more evidence in the gospels for its claims as there is for Ichadon's flying head or, for that matter, Icharus' fateful flight in their related texts. You aren't looking at the evidence - you are merely attempting to ram evidence into your prejudged belief. That isn't how you use evidence - evidence should inform views and opinions not be used to justify views and opinions already formed.

Can you provide any documentation of the miracle associated with this Buddhist monk?

Yes - it is in Haedong Kosung-jon which reports and collates earlier records of the lives of eminent Korean monks. Just like the gospels it makes claims with no credible evidence that those claims are true and also the claims (like those in the gospels) are completely implausible.

So if you are being consistent (on the evidence or lack thereof) you should either accept both sets of claims or reject both (as I do). You are inconsistent in accepting the claims in the gospels yet (I assume) rejecting the claims in Haedong Kosung-jon.

[Roses]

Well, as you know, I believe the gospels and new testament are the evidence for Christianity. The alternatives to their being true are mistakes or lies, neither of which can be demonstrated - you just have to assume mistakes or lies. You call this the Christian apologist's game... no, it's just looking at the evidence. Can you provide any documentation of the miracle associated with this Buddhist monk?

The gospels were written a long time after Jesus died, and they read like fantasy land, the miracles attributed to Jesus have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I believe that con man and so called 'healer', Benny Hinn, claims amputated limbs have grown back thanks to his healing powers!

[Spud]

But there is no more evidence in the gospels for its claims as there is for Ichadon's flying head or, for that matter, Icharus' fateful flight in their related texts. You aren't looking at the evidence - you are merely attempting to ram evidence into your prejudged belief. That isn't how you use evidence - evidence should inform views and opinions not be used to justify views and opinions already formed.
Yes - it is in Haedong Kosung-jon which reports and collates earlier records of the lives of eminent Korean monks. Just like the gospels it makes claims with no credible evidence that those claims are true and also the claims (like those in the gospels) are completely implausible.

So if you are being consistent (on the evidence or lack thereof) you should either accept both sets of claims or reject both (as I do). You are inconsistent in accepting the claims in the gospels yet (I assume) rejecting the claims in Haedong Kosung-jon.

Sorry but when you have four+ independent accounts based on eyewitness testimony that is more than one biography. What we haven't discussed is the one miracle we are all witness to, our existence. If you don't believe this is a miracle, then you won't believe other miracles can happen. I would have to read the full account of Ichadon rather than a wikipedia quote in order to comment properly...

[Spud]

The gospels were written a long time after Jesus died

Can you back this up. A link, maybe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you back this up. A link, maybe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition_and_authorship

Under the section 'Composition and authorship':

'The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[30] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses'

Are you really claiming to be unaware that serious historians consider the gospels to have been written decades after Jesus' death. Also as I've pointed our previously even with the gospels being written between about 70-110 we have complete 'radio silence' for decades more until we actually have fragments, let alone complete gospels, that we can actually see and read. We are really completely in the dark about changes that might have occurred from the original writing the the 'final' versions we see some hundreds of years later. That said we are aware of edits, additions and major changes - the most obvious being Mark which was doctored to include additional material at the end to add to the rather unconvincing original ending of just an empty tomb with no resurrection or appearances of Jesus post death.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry but when you have four+ independent accounts ...

No you don't - at the very least Mark, Matthew and Luke are interlinked and not independent of each other. See again the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels

Mark, Matthew and Luke are most definitely not independent accounts, so at best we have two independent accounts. But even then they are extremely weak in terms of credibility of evidence - failing on the test of being contemporary, failing on the test of being independent (i.e. not written by people with a biased agenda), failing on there being zero corroboratory evidence from other contemporary sources, e.g. Roman, Jewish even on the most basic of issues, for example whether Jesus even existed, failing in that they don't arise from the place whether the events are supposed to take place, failing on the lack of any physical archeological evidence to support the claims.

And that is before you add in the implausibility of the claims and of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

based on eyewitness testimony that is more than one biography.

They are not written by eye witnesses and I don't understand what 'based on eyewitness testimony' really means in any meaningful sense - in this case the likelihood is that the gospels are based on stories past down over several generations of believers (that point is key) - so whether or not if we trace back we get to an eye witness (we have no idea whether we do) is totally irrelevant to the veracity of the stories. The ancient world is full of myths and fantasy stories which similarly are 'based on eyewitness testimony' - that doesn't mean they are true.

[jeremyp]

We can assume the young man has seen him because he knows about the arrangement Jesus had made to meet them in Galilee.

Hat’s not the point. Mark contains no post resurrection appearance of Jesus.

[jeremyp]

There is independent material, such as the guards (Matthew), Jesus explaining the scriptures, Peter running to the tomb (Luke).

You don’t understand what “independent” means in this context. It means there are several independent witnesses for the same event. There’s only one source for the guards and one source for Peter running to the tomb. I.e. the authors of the respective accounts. It’s most likely that Matthew and John made up those details because nobody else talked about them, even though they were copying off each other.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Spud, you do know and cannot know this, because:

1. The earliest fragments containing the wording in this order are from about 300AD and you do not and cannot know how that relates to what was originally written.

2. Even if we assume the original had the wording in that order you do no and cannot know Mark's motivation in writing it in that order - indeed we don't even know who Mark was.

Further you are assuming he changed the order, therefore was basing his origin on earlier oral or written tradition with a different order - you have no evidence for this.

Actually, scholars are reasonably confident that they have got the order correct through textual criticism. The modern reconstructed Greek text is probably fairly close to the original.

It's normal not to have the originals or anything close to the originals for ancient texts. For example, there are no extant copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars from anything like as early as the fourth century.

We can't be certain of anything but it is reasonably likely that

- we have more or less reconstructed the original gospels
- Mark was the earliest with Matthew and Luke using it as the basis for their gospels
- we do not know who any of the authors are
- there are no other sources that can corroborate anything except the broadest details of Jesus' life
- dead men  don't come alive again.

Actually, that last one is not "reasonably likely", it's pretty much a racing certainty. Any argument Spud makes has that mountain to scale. There is a hypothesis, for example, that Christianity was manufactured by Eusebius in the fourth century. This is a ridiculous theory with a load of huge problems but it is still more credible than a man actually rising from the  dead.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually, scholars are reasonably confident that they have got the order correct through textual criticism. The modern reconstructed Greek text is probably fairly close to the original.

My point was just one of interest - that although Mark is considered to be the first gospel written we have fewer early fragment than for the other gospels. That doesn't imply it was written later, merely I suspect chance.

It's normal not to have the originals or anything close to the originals for ancient texts. For example, there are no extant copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars from anything like as early as the fourth century.

True - but that means we can only be certain of what it is in the extant copy - assuming it is the same as the earliest (but lost) version is speculation.

We can't be certain of anything but it is reasonably likely that

- we have more or less reconstructed the original gospels

No - I don't agree - we have reconstructed the earliest extant versions and fragment, but I do not think we can be confident that those earliest extant versions are the same as those written some 100 years earlier at the least. We know of changes later than that - notably the alteration to the end of Mark, but that is largely known not through a different and inconsistent writing style but because consistently the earliest fragments and copies don't include the addition and then later it starts to appear. From the point of the original writing to the earliest extant copies and fragments we are completely in the dark.

- Mark was the earliest with Matthew and Luke using it as the basis for their gospels

I agree.

- we do not know who any of the authors are

I agree.

- there are no other sources that can corroborate anything except the broadest details of Jesus' life

I'd go further than that - we have no near contemporary corroboratory source that even confirms that Jesus existed, let alone what he did.

- dead men  don't come alive again.

True

[ProfessorDavey]

- we have more or less reconstructed the original gospels

Just to give some context, I gather that when comparisons are made of the earliest fragments and full extant gospels there are several hundreds of thousands of variants between them. It is unclear to what extent this reflects simple copying error (it is likely, due to the nature of the early church, that copying may have been done by inexperienced non-professional copyists) or reflects deliberate alterations to align better with the current theological view. Scholars appear to believe both was going on.

With such a vast proliferation of variations with a few hundreds of years it is very challenging to be clear which variants (indeed if any) actually reflect the original version as we can reasonable anticipate that similar levels of variation would have been occurring between the original version and the earliest extant fragments and entire gospels. While we can see the levels of variation from about 150-300 we cannot see this from 70-150 as we have no physical evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

What we haven't discussed is the one miracle we are all witness to, our existence. If you don't believe this is a miracle, then you won't believe other miracles can happen.

Let's use a fairly standard definition of a miracle:

'an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency' - my emphasis

So no our existence is not a miracle as it is clearly and demonstrably explicable by natural and scientific laws.

Sure our physiology and biology is remarkable with astonishing levels of complexity that never cease to amaze me - and let's not forget that I've spent the last 33 years researching aspects of that biology. But that doesn't mean it is a 'miracle' and it certainly doesn't mean that some purported god had anything to do with it.

Actually the notion that god (who in most traditions is in effect a super-human entity, with the emphasis on the human) created the astonishing complexities that we see in nature is both insulting to nature and hugely arrogant - in effect, man creating god broadly in his own image and then saying that god created this wonderful natural world.

[jeremyp]

True - but that means we can only be certain of what it is in the extant copy - assuming it is the same as the earliest (but lost) version is speculation.

No, you assume a linear inheritance for all extant copies, which is to say, you assume the second earliest copy was copied from the oldest copy (with intermediate steps potentially), the third oldest from the second oldest etc. In reality, we have many copies that all inherit from the original source but not necessarily from an existing extant copy. We use the discrepancies in the various copies to reconstruct an earlier version that they do all inherit from. This is not necessarily the original, but we can make estimates as to how old it must have been.

No - I don't agree - we have reconstructed the earliest extant versions and fragment, but I do not think we can be confident that those earliest extant versions are the same as those written some 100 years earlier at the least.

You can't be 100% certain, but the experts do have some confidence.

We know of changes later than that - notably the alteration to the end of Mark, but that is largely known not through a different and inconsistent writing style but because consistently the earliest fragments and copies don't include the addition and then later it starts to appear. From the point of the original writing to the earliest extant copies and fragments we are completely in the dark.

No we aren't completely in the dark as I explained above. There is a lot of speculation, but it not complete guesswork.

I'd go further than that - we have no near contemporary corroboratory source that even confirms that Jesus existed, let alone what he did.

We have one from 20 years later - Paul's letters, but it's pretty sketchy in that there are very few details given beyond Jesus' existence and crucifixion.

[Spud]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition_and_authorship

Under the section 'Composition and authorship':

'The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[30] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses'

Are you really claiming to be unaware that serious historians consider the gospels to have been written decades after Jesus' death.

Thanks - no, I was interested to know if LR understands why these dates are assigned. But the New Testament contains eyewitness testimony, whether or not it was written decades after the events. For example, John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3 as obvious mentions of written and oral first-hand accounts used by John and Luke.

Also as I've pointed our previously even with the gospels being written between about 70-110 we have complete 'radio silence' for decades more until we actually have fragments, let alone complete gospels, that we can actually see and read. We are really completely in the dark about changes that might have occurred from the original writing the the 'final' versions we see some hundreds of years later. That said we are aware of edits, additions and major changes - the most obvious being Mark which was doctored to include additional material at the end to add to the rather unconvincing original ending of just an empty tomb with no resurrection or appearances of Jesus post death.

We know that in many places, some ancient manuscripts do not have certain words, phrases sentences or whole paragraphs, as noted in modern bibles. Yet the message is not changed by these possible omissions: they do not cause doubt as to the claims of the gospels.

[Roses]

Thanks - no, I was interested to know if LR understands why these dates are assigned. But the New Testament contains eyewitness testimony, whether or not it was written decades after the events. For example, John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3 as obvious mentions of written and oral first-hand accounts used by John and Luke.

We know that in many places, some ancient manuscripts do not have certain words, phrases sentences or whole paragraphs, as noted in modern bibles. Yet the message is not changed by these possible omissions: they do not cause doubt as to the claims of the gospels.

Oh for pity's sake Spud, the gospel writers more than likely made up the stories featured in their accounts, including those attributed to 'eye witnesses'. There is no independent evidence to support the resurrection or any of the other accounts of what Jesus is supposed to have done whilst alive. Besides which, 'eye witness' accounts of less than credible events cannot be taken at face value. As I have mentioned quite a number of times, many 'eye witnesses' claimed to have seen the 'Angel of Mons' on the battle field during WW1, when in actual fact it was merely a fairy story created by a journalist.

[ProfessorDavey]

We have one from 20 years later - Paul's letters, but it's pretty sketchy in that there are very few details given beyond Jesus' existence and crucifixion.

True but I was thinking of sources independent from the developing christian church, so for example Jewish or Roman records from the first few decades of the 1stC that indicate that Jesus existed. There are none as far as I'm aware - people often refer to Tacitus and Josephus, but they were writing no earlier than 90-110 so later than the earliest gospels. And it isn't clear whether they are really independent voices or just referring to what the early christians were saying.