New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

For crying out loud Spud - just because a gospel writer claims his writing is based on eye witness testimony doesn't mean it is - you are using a circular argument.

And as I've said several times I cannot see how the gospel writers decades after the events could know that their writing was based on eye witness account. They'd merely have had to take this on trust as they'd be receiving the information second, third, fourth etc hand.

To use the Oxford Girl by Oyster Band as an example again:

'I met a man whose brother said he knew a man who knew the Oxford girl'

Can be certain that the final man knew the Oxford girl - of course not - I am taking on trust that what I have been told by the first man is true and he is taking what his brother said on trust and his brother is taking on trust what the final man says.

[Roses]

I have been an 'eye witness' on a number of occasions to remarkable things which defy any credibility. For a second or two I thought I witnessed an image resembling the Virgin Mary in the field belonging to our previous property, where sightings of her had been claimed by quite a number of people. I am of the opinion I was seeing something I wished to see in that instance. That image resembled the picture book version of Mary, as no paintings were done of the woman whilst alive, she would not have looked anything like that in reality.

[jeremyp]

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

Correct. Although this is what we would expect of an itinerant preacher whose fame arises from many decades after his life ended.

- 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.

Well at least some of what Josephus wrote is forged. Anyway, it's likely both his source and Tacitus's source where the local Christians. They prove that Christians existed and broadly believed what's in the Bible, but not that their beliefs were based on facts.

[Spud]

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

But the angel's announcement still shows that when Mark wrote, the resurrection was believed by the church to have happened. If Mark wanted to make the point that Jesus was victorious although his opponents had apparently succeeded in destroying him, he does so effectively without resurrection appearances.

[Spud]

I have been an 'eye witness' on a number of occasions to remarkable things which defy any credibility. For a second or two I thought I witnessed an image resembling the Virgin Mary in the field belonging to our previous property, where sightings of her had been claimed by quite a number of people. I am of the opinion I was seeing something I wished to see in that instance. That image resembled the picture book version of Mary, as no paintings were done of the woman whilst alive, she would not have looked anything like that in reality.

This is slightly different from having breakfast with someone who was recently executed.

[Spud]

For crying out loud Spud - just because a gospel writer claims his writing is based on eye witness testimony doesn't mean it is - you are using a circular argument.

Not just claimed eyewitness sources. They are apparent from a straight reading. Eg would they have quoted Jesus as saying, "no-one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" if he had not actually said it? They are claiming that the Son of God did not know a simple thing like when his return was to be!

[jeremyp]

But the angel's announcement still shows that when Mark wrote, the resurrection was believed by the church to have happened.

So what?

If Mark wanted to make the point that Jesus was victorious although his opponents had apparently succeeded in destroying him, he does so effectively without resurrection appearances.

The point is that Mark doesn't document any resurrection appearances so when the other gospel writers - who were copying him - got to that bit, they decided to each make up their own resurrection appearances, none of which are consistent with each other. This is strongly indicative that there was no real oral tradition of specific appearances.

[jeremyp]

Not just claimed eyewitness sources.

Yes, just claimed sources.

They are apparent from a straight reading. Eg would they have quoted Jesus as saying, "no-one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" if he had not actually said it? They are claiming that the Son of God did not know a simple thing like when his return was to be!

There's a difference between a claim that somebody said something and a claim that they died and came alive again.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not just claimed eyewitness sources. They are apparent from a straight reading. Eg would they have quoted Jesus as saying, "no-one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" if he had not actually said it? They are claiming that the Son of God did not know a simple thing like when his return was to be!

The use ion direct quotes, for me, is a clear sign that this isn't accurate. Eye witnesses do not remember detail in that way - they might remember the general gist of what somewhat said, perhaps the basis meaning. But they simply wont remember word for word accurate direct quotes - people aren't some kind of recording machine.

And there are examples whether the 'people in the room' - so to speak have no further involvement in the later events, so how on earth could direct quotes have ever been collected. A couple of good examples are in the nativity story, firstly the shepherds and the angel - no one else was there and the only witnesses (the shepherds) have no further part in the ongoing story of Jesus' later life, yet apparently we have direct quote of the words of the angel.

Secondly the Magi in the presence of Herod - how on earth would direct quotes have arisen and been recorded to be inserted into a gospel some 90 years later. It makes no sense and the only explanation is that the direct quotes were made up for narrative effect.

[ProfessorDavey]

Correct. Although this is what we would expect of an itinerant preacher whose fame arises from many decades after his life ended.
Well at least some of what Josephus wrote is forged. Anyway, it's likely both his source and Tacitus's source where the local Christians. They prove that Christians existed and broadly believed what's in the Bible, but not that their beliefs were based on facts.

Yes certainly a chunk of Josephus is generally considered to be a christian addition.

Also I think the nature of the brief sections on Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus read as if they are describing the presence of early christians (no-one is going to deny they existed at the time of writing) and what those christians believed (again no-one denies what they believed). However neither really give and independent credence to details of Jesus' life, even less so to the veracity of the claims. I'd go further - had Josephus or Tacitus actually believed the claims, surely they'd have converted to christianity - they didn't of course.

[jeremyp]

The use ion direct quotes, for me, is a clear sign that this isn't accurate. Eye witnesses do not remember detail in that way - they might remember the general gist of what somewhat said, perhaps the basis meaning. But they simply wont remember word for word accurate direct quotes - people aren't some kind of recording machine.

And there are examples whether the 'people in the room' - so to speak have no further involvement in the later events, so how on earth could direct quotes have ever been collected. A couple of good examples are in the nativity story, firstly the shepherds and the angel - no one else was there and the only witnesses (the shepherds) have no further part in the ongoing story of Jesus' later life, yet apparently we have direct quote of the words of the angel.

Secondly the Magi in the presence of Herod - how on earth would direct quotes have arisen and been recorded to be inserted into a gospel some 90 years later. It makes no sense and the only explanation is that the direct quotes were made up for narrative effect.

It's a bit like those historical dramas where the characters, who are real people have private conversations that nobody else could possibly know. Usually such dramas have a disclaimer to tell you that the said conversations have been "re-imagined" or something.

Anyway, as regards the Nativity story, there is also a story in Luke about Jesus as a twelve year old.

And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival. When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. Assuming that he was in the group of travellers, they went a day’s journey. Then they started to look for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, ‘Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.’ He said to them, ‘Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ But they did not understand what he said to them.

I remember being told this in school as a child aged seven and even then having difficulty understanding how Mary and Joseph could have forgotten about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. Of course they forgot about it because the nativity story is a fiction. Come to think of it, the above story is almost certainly a fiction too.

[Roses]

If Jesus had been everything claimed for him, he wouldn't have conveniently disappeared skywards as the gospels say he did. His presence is still needed down here to convince non believers that he resurrected, his work wasn't done as some Christians state when asked why he didn't remain here on Earth.

[jeremyp]

had Josephus or Tacitus actually believed the claims, surely they'd have converted to christianity

Tacitus says this:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus

He reports what he thinks are facts. He doesn't even mention the resurrection. And he doesn't say what his source is.

Josephus, on the other hand, writes:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.

I don't see how anybody could write that and not be a Christian. Josephus was not a Christian, so the only conclusion is that the text above is forged.

[ProfessorDavey]

Tacitus says this:

He reports what he thinks are facts. He doesn't even mention the resurrection. And he doesn't say what his source is.

Tacitus does talk about christians and their fate at the hands of Nero so I suspect he had some understanding of what they believed.

Josephus, on the other hand, writes:

I don't see how anybody could write that and not be a Christian. Josephus was not a Christian, so the only conclusion is that the text above is forged.

Most scholars accept that part as a forgery. Josephus makes another reference to Jesus as the brother of James. This appears to be nothing more than a factual statement of relationships.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyway, as regards the Nativity story, there is also a story in Luke about Jesus as a twelve year old.
I remember being told this in school as a child aged seven and even then having difficulty understanding how Mary and Joseph could have forgotten about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. Of course they forgot about it because the nativity story is a fiction. Come to think of it, the above story is almost certainly a fiction too.

And yet Joseph and Mary remembered word for word what the shepherds told them the angel had said.

Point being that the only plausible way in which the direct quote of the angel to the shepherds could have been passed on to the gospel writers would be if they told Mary and Joseph and they retained the information long enough to pass on to others at the time of Jesus' ministry and then to others ultimately to the gospel writer. Point being that the shepherds are never heard of again in the bible.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a bit like those historical dramas where the characters, who are real people have private conversations that nobody else could possibly know. Usually such dramas have a disclaimer to tell you that the said conversations have been "re-imagined" or something.

Absolutely - without some mechanism of actually recording quotes, which would require them to be written down, there is simply no way that a direct quote could be remembered and passed on multiple times accurately.

And the gospels are stuffed with them, not just statements from Jesus (which I could plausibly see could be recorded in some manner) but conversations with others. Who on earth was tasked with jotting down every last word that was said. It stretches credulity to breaking point.

[Spud]

So what?

The point is that Mark doesn't document any resurrection appearances so when the other gospel writers - who were copying him - got to that bit, they decided to each make up their own resurrection appearances, none of which are consistent with each other. This is strongly indicative that there was no real oral tradition of specific appearances.

Except they weren't copying him.

It is clear to me that Matthew and possibly Luke were Mark's sources, if there was inter-dependence.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is clear to me that Matthew and possibly Luke were Mark's sources, if there was inter-dependence.

Weird that because academic scholars with expertise in the matter (i.e. people who know what they are talking about) are consistently of the opinion that Mark was written first with Luke and Matthew coming late and using Mark as one source.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is clear to me that Matthew and possibly Luke were Mark's sources, if there was inter-dependence.

Which makes no sense in relation to Jeremy P's comment.

If Mark was borrowing from Matthew and Luke (both of whom claim appearances of the resurrected Jesus) why on earth would he leave that out. Sure that would be the very first thing he'd want to include.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see how anybody could write that and not be a Christian. Josephus was not a Christian, so the only conclusion is that the text above is forged.

Indeed - but lets get back to Ichadon and his head flying to mountains, milk from severed neck routine. His reason for doing this was to persuade Korea to adopt Buddhism - and guess what it worked - so impressed were the people who were witnesses to the miracles they converted to Buddhism en mass and Korea made it their state religion.

Bit like christianity where the witnesses to the miracles, the Jewish and Roman populations of Palestine converted en mass to christianity ... hmm ... there's something wrong here, can't quite work out what

[Spud]

Which makes no sense in relation to Jeremy P's comment.

If Mark was borrowing from Matthew and Luke (both of whom claim appearances of the resurrected Jesus) why on earth would he leave that out. Sure that would be the very first thing he'd want to include.

It means that Jeremy's theory in his comment is wrong.

See post #278 where I explained the point Mark wanted to make, and how his abrupt ending makes it effectively without the need for more. Mark habitually omits large chunks of material, and where he does we find signs that he has done so - one author even says, "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". The scholars seem to have missed this.

[ProfessorDavey]

It means that Jeremy's theory in his comment is wrong.

No it doesn't - it means Mark came first, no mention of resurrection appearances. Matthew and Luke come later, borrow from Mark but aren't impressed by the less than impressive ending to the gospel. So they add in some stories about appearances - interestingly they seem not to be working from the same playbook, as although they both include appearances they've made up different stories as the appearances are entirely different in each.

[ProfessorDavey]

one author even says, "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew"

Which author - reference please.

The scholars seem to have missed this.

Not necessarily - they may be aware of that view but do not agree with it based on the available evidence.

[ippy]

I have been an 'eye witness' on a number of occasions to remarkable things which defy any credibility. For a second or two I thought I witnessed an image resembling the Virgin Mary in the field belonging to our previous property, where sightings of her had been claimed by quite a number of people. I am of the opinion I was seeing something I wished to see in that instance. That image resembled the picture book version of Mary, as no paintings were done of the woman whilst alive, she would not have looked anything like that in reality.

Never heard of a Muslim having a vision of Mary or a Catholic, having a vision of Mohamed I wonder why?

ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Never heard of a Muslim having a vision of Mary or a Catholic, having a vision of Mohamed I wonder why?

ippy.

True - people tend to see visions that reflect their upbringing and traditions rather than those that don't. And if those visions were genuinely 'external' rather than manifestations of internal, but subconscious states, then there would surely be no reason why the virgin mary shouldn't appear to anyone, including of course people who might never have encountered christianity before, e.g. indigenous tribes prior to colonialism. But that doesn't seem to happen does it.

LR's point about seeing the classical picture book versions is also very telling - if these were real in an external manner then the appearance would be the real one, which is highly unlikely to resemble the picture book one.