(Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts

[Silmarien]

I was fairly intrigued by the Catholic biblical scholar Brant Pitre's take on these issues in his own Case For Jesus. A couple of points he made:

1. Luke and Mark were openly not eyewitnesses, and given how many of the apocryphal Gospels were directly attributed to apostles, it seems less likely that the the authors/community would have intentionally falsely attributed them to people without the same authority.

2. Matthew was a tax collector, so would have been literate, so if any disciple would have written an account, it actually would have been him. I believe one of the major arguments against Matthean authorship is that he appears to have used the text of Mark as a source, but Pitre points out that it isn't unheard of for an eyewitness to use secondary sources when writing their own accounts. (Especially given the link between Mark and Peter.)

I'm currently undecided between a version of the traditional view and the somewhat more liberal view that the Gospels were the result of oral tradition, but I do not have a particularly high view of scholarly consensus, since it tends to be fickle and sometimes uncritical of its own methods.

My other major thought on this matter would be that the apocryphal Gospels that many atheists claim were competing with the traditional Gospels are really not that good. For one, with the possible exception of Thomas, they're not as old. They also tend to be a syncretic mess with a lot of butchered Platonic philosophy and who knows what else tossed in for good measure, and they're often attributed to central figures.

The claim that Irenaeus of Lyons single-handedly determined what the four Gospels would be strikes me as extremely far-fetched, given that people like Clement of Alexandria were working with the same Gospels at the same time on the other side of the Roman Empire. There would also have been evidence of dissension if something like this had happened.

I think the only reasonable claim in the mix is that the Gospels might have been anonymous, though I would say that even that isn't anywhere near as certain as is being asserted here (especially in the case of Mark and Luke).

 

[chilehed]

And this conclusion follows naturally because they believe it's impossible that Jesus actually prophesied: because prophecy is impossible.

Which begs the question.

 

[Grace H]

2 Peter 1:21 says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Men wrote what they were told by God to write. Essentially the author is God. I believe that God used the names on the gospel to write them.

 

[Barney2.0]

I’ve reviewed both cases for and against traditional authorship, the cases against traditional authorship in my own opinion are quite weak when you actually carefully review all the supposed objections. The only thing that I would concede to skeptics is that the Gospels are anonymous in that the authors don’t name themselves within the text, in that sense most of the Bible is anonymous, but that does not mean that we can’t know who wrote them nor do we not possess evidence as to who wrote them. Also the titles may have been added a little later, but it would have to be based on a valid tradition, one that the Churches possessed that really went back to these four men or those associated with them, otherwise it is nonsense. The argument and fact that the early Church was unanimous in its attribution of the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from the early second century and onwards is enough to do away with the anonymous Gospels theory, it’s absurd to imagine that the Gospels circulated for even more then a decade anonymous only for later unanimous attribution to only four authors to appear, this was an argument Martin Hengel a noted historian used to defend the traditional authorship of the four Gospels. There’s also the fact that we don’t possess anonymous copies of any of the four Gospels so there goes the anonymous Gospels theory.

 

[klutedavid]

Oh boy, I have another post here to start a discussion over and it is quite the doozy. Check out my first post to know more about this 'atheist arguments from history' thing;

--------

"The four gospels in the Bible are not eyewitness accounts. This is the standard understanding, a historical fact, among nearly all New Testament scholars.

The gospels were written anonymously & not by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry nor his disciples."

The sooner the church acknowledges this instead of asserting faith over historical fact the sooner we can have rational discussions.
.
The four gospels we have now were decided upon mostly by Irenaeus, a bishop of Rome. His reasoning? There were four pillars to the universe and four universal winds so it only makes sense the gods truth is held up by four pillars- four gospels. That’s some solid reasoning.
.
The reason he even had to come up with a certain number is that there were DOZENS of gospels being passed around- all of them were heretical, of course, heretical to Irenaeus’ version of orthodox belief, except the four he picked. The winners write the history books. These heretical gospels would be banned only the four they chose would be considered non heretical. These are the four we have today.
He picked these because he assumed they were actually written by the names given to them which occurred roughly 60 years before.
Apparently he did not know the lack of scrutiny that went into their authorship.
.
Nearly no NT scholar believes the gospels are actually written by who they claim to be and those reasons are beyond reasonable and, at the very least, impossible to refute with current evidence.
.
The story of how we got the gospels we have today is a picture and the remnants of a power struggle, or one well organized movement that dominated another. It is the very example of organized religion stepping on the people and ideas they deem heretical.
These were voices who would be silenced from history forever due to doctrinal differences.
.
2k years later, not much has changed. If Jesus was indeed a Holy Man, “his” so-called church destroyed his message by the end of the second century. All in the name of religion and being theologically right- and everyone can, literally, be damned.

I doubt whether anyone would question Luke's gospel account. Luke states that he is recording eyewitness accounts of those that knew Jesus.

Luke 1:2
Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

We know Luke was a companion of Paul.

Colossians 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and also Demas.

2 Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.

Philemon 1:24
As do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers.

Luke's gospel is well written (educated author) and I believe is the same pen that wrote Acts.

 

[Tolworth John]

In my reading I think that Lee Strobel's argument is the one that was shredded.

I am interested just how has the evidence offered by Craig Blomberg been shredded?

 

[Barney2.0]

I am interested just how has the evidence offered by Craig Blomberg been shredded?

It hasn’t been shredded, I personally prefer to refer to read or listen to real conservative New Testament scholars in this particular regard rather then mere Apologists like Lee Strobel (that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good arguments though). I downloaded a copy of Craig Blomberg’s book: “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels”, I have only read the beginning parts of it, but it seems good, albeit not very simple to understand since it’s dealing with the Gospels from a scholarly and historical stand point.

 

[Tolworth John]

It hasn’t been shredded, I personally prefer to refer to read or listen to real conservative New Testament scholars in this particular regard rather then mere mere Apologists like Lee Strobel (that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good arguments though). I downloaded a copy of Craig Blomberg’s book: “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels”, I have only read the beginning parts of it, but it seems good, albeit not very simple to understand since it’s dealing with the Gospels from a scholarly and historical stand point.

Strobel interviewed a series of acknowledged experts. His book is a series of reports of his interviews.
For his work to have been shredded would mean solid evidence has need found that demonstrate that Christianity is false.

 

[Radagast]

The four gospels we have now were decided upon mostly by Irenaeus, a bishop of Rome. His reasoning? There were four pillars to the universe and four universal winds so it only makes sense the gods truth is held up by four pillars- four gospels. That’s some solid reasoning.

As usual, these atheist arguments are built on blatant lies.

Irenaeus, in fact, like several other early Christians, points out that the 4 canonical gospels existed from the very beginning, while the "alternate" gospels were written much later.

I'm not sure why someone who purports to be Christian is repeating rubbish like this, when it's so easily contradicted by the historical record.

 

[nolidad]

Oh boy, I have another post here to start a discussion over and it is quite the doozy. Check out my first post to know more about this 'atheist arguments from history' thing;

--------

"The four gospels in the Bible are not eyewitness accounts. This is the standard understanding, a historical fact, among nearly all New Testament scholars.

The gospels were written anonymously & not by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry nor his disciples."

The sooner the church acknowledges this instead of asserting faith over historical fact the sooner we can have rational discussions.
.
The four gospels we have now were decided upon mostly by Irenaeus, a bishop of Rome. His reasoning? There were four pillars to the universe and four universal winds so it only makes sense the gods truth is held up by four pillars- four gospels. That’s some solid reasoning.
.
The reason he even had to come up with a certain number is that there were DOZENS of gospels being passed around- all of them were heretical, of course, heretical to Irenaeus’ version of orthodox belief, except the four he picked. The winners write the history books. These heretical gospels would be banned only the four they chose would be considered non heretical. These are the four we have today.
He picked these because he assumed they were actually written by the names given to them which occurred roughly 60 years before.
Apparently he did not know the lack of scrutiny that went into their authorship.
.
Nearly no NT scholar believes the gospels are actually written by who they claim to be and those reasons are beyond reasonable and, at the very least, impossible to refute with current evidence.
.
The story of how we got the gospels we have today is a picture and the remnants of a power struggle, or one well organized movement that dominated another. It is the very example of organized religion stepping on the people and ideas they deem heretical.
These were voices who would be silenced from history forever due to doctrinal differences.
.
2k years later, not much has changed. If Jesus was indeed a Holy Man, “his” so-called church destroyed his message by the end of the second century. All in the name of religion and being theologically right- and everyone can, literally, be damned.

These arguments waited over 1800 years before they were started to be considered with any seriousness. These were popularized in Europe in what were known as the higher schools of Biblical criticism. Many "orthodox" beliefs were questioned by these apostate schools.

There were about 70 gospels in circulation. Before we go all gaga about that- gospel simply means good news, so many disciples wrote accounts of Jesus life. Many heretics as well like the gospel of Thomas (written by the heretical gnostics) and the gospel of Mary (authorship unsure).

These supposed scholars, over 1800 years removed from the writing, believe they can tell with certainty who wrote the gospels. There is no reason to believe that is empirically valid to believe the gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke and JOhn!

Fact is the very gospels themselves and the known and traditional histories passed down, give strong credence that the Gospels were written by the name of the gospel.

Matthew wrote to the Jews and shows a very sron Jewish flavor.
Mark wrote tot eh Roman world and shows Jesus in the mindset.

Luke (the companion of Paul) wrote a chronological account and wrote with the greek mindset in mind.

JOhn wrote a letter to rebut the heretical teachings of the gnostics.

 

[Radagast]

Also the titles may have been added a little later

I'm not aware of any manuscript evidence for gospels without a title.

And both Luke and John have internal evidence indicating authorship.

 

[Zao is life]

Oh boy, I have another post here to start a discussion over and it is quite the doozy. Check out my first post to know more about this 'atheist arguments from history' thing;

--------

"The four gospels in the Bible are not eyewitness accounts. This is the standard understanding, a historical fact, among nearly all New Testament scholars.

The gospels were written anonymously & not by eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry nor his disciples."

The sooner the church acknowledges this instead of asserting faith over historical fact the sooner we can have rational discussions.
.
The four gospels we have now were decided upon mostly by Irenaeus, a bishop of Rome. His reasoning? There were four pillars to the universe and four universal winds so it only makes sense the gods truth is held up by four pillars- four gospels. That’s some solid reasoning.
.
The reason he even had to come up with a certain number is that there were DOZENS of gospels being passed around- all of them were heretical, of course, heretical to Irenaeus’ version of orthodox belief, except the four he picked. The winners write the history books. These heretical gospels would be banned only the four they chose would be considered non heretical. These are the four we have today.
He picked these because he assumed they were actually written by the names given to them which occurred roughly 60 years before.
Apparently he did not know the lack of scrutiny that went into their authorship.
.
Nearly no NT scholar believes the gospels are actually written by who they claim to be and those reasons are beyond reasonable and, at the very least, impossible to refute with current evidence.
.
The story of how we got the gospels we have today is a picture and the remnants of a power struggle, or one well organized movement that dominated another. It is the very example of organized religion stepping on the people and ideas they deem heretical.
These were voices who would be silenced from history forever due to doctrinal differences.
.
2k years later, not much has changed. If Jesus was indeed a Holy Man, “his” so-called church destroyed his message by the end of the second century. All in the name of religion and being theologically right- and everyone can, literally, be damned.

Nearly no NT scholar believes the gospels are actually written by who they claim to be and those reasons are beyond reasonable and, at the very least, impossible to refute with current evidence.

Scholars say that Mark wrote before Matthew and much of Matthew is copied from Mark.

My opinion on this is subjective. Maybe it's just me, but when I read Matthew, I can see someone who was an eye-witness. His details are too specific, and he divides his gospel (scholars say) into seven parts, each part ending with the words "When Jesus ended these sayings", or similar words. I actually find eight divisions when I read Matthew: the seventh division talks about His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, the eighth talks about His resurrection.

So when I read Matthew and Mark, it looks to me like parts of Mark were copied from Matthew, and that Matthew was an eye-witness, but again, maybe it's just me, but I really do see an eye-witness when I read Matthew.

I believe John was written by John and I see an eye-witness when I read John, I see someone who was writing from memory, not oral tradition, and Luke identifies himself as someone who was not an eye-witness. Luke went around collecting information from those who were eye-witnesses in order to compile his gospel.

If Matthew was not an eye-witness, then all I can think is that Matthew and Mark both copied from a third source, now no longer extant. However, I doubt very much Matthew was not an eye-witness. I see someone who not only knows what he's talking about, but knows what he's talking about because he saw and heard what he's talking about,

I don't see any of the gospels talking as though the destruction of the temple had already occurred, when I read them. I see Jesus prophesying the destruction of the temple, but that's not the same thing. But that's just me. Maybe these atheist scholars who believe nothing anyway can see more clearly than me.

I don't believe everything that the modern Christian scholars say either, because it's like everything else - how do you react to the Corona virus - like Sweden, or like the U.K, both of which have exactly the same infection rate, with no lock-down in Sweden and a lock-down in the U.K? There are so many medical experts on the virus disagreeing with one another - and this is something that is happening in our time - how about 2,000 years ago?

So what I do is believe what my spirit tells me while reading the gospels - and in them (with the exception of Luke), I see eye-witness accounts all over the place.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

As usual, these atheist arguments are built on blatant lies.

Irenaeus, in fact, like several other early Christians, points out that the 4 canonical gospels existed from the very beginning, while the "alternate" gospels were written much later.

I'm not sure why someone who purports to be Christian is repeating rubbish like this, when it's so easily contradicted by the historical record.

Please--no need to be rude. I want to learn more about this subject, and it's not like I have instant references to historical records available. I posted it to incite discussion so I can hear the Christian side of the story, as Atheists tend to leave out important facts on purpose.

 

[Sam81]

The Holy Spirit In me bears witness to the truth. The natural man cannot receive the things of God. Those born of God seek His kingdom and His righteousness. The children of the devil are seeking something else, and what they find is a strong delusion.

 

[d taylor]

An atheist is no more than an liar/antichrist why give them the time of day.

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Please--no need to be rude. I want to learn more about this subject, and it's not like I have instant references to historical records available. I posted it to incite discussion so I can hear the Christian side of the story, as Atheists tend to leave out important facts on purpose.

If you want to get into the basics then I think Strobel's books are actually a good read. The only genuine argument against them is that at times Strobel writes of his own scepticism when we know he is a Christian.

There are some good video rebuttals as well (it is not difficult to rebut many of the arguments).

If you want to get into more scholarly works, I suggest Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

 

[JackRT]

An atheist is no more than an liar/antichrist why give them the time of day.

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

You paint with too broad a brush. A liar is one who tells an untruth while knowing full well that it is an untruth. An atheist could very well be mistaken but not necessarily a liar. But s/he is still a human being worthy of respect regardless of what they believe.

 

[Sam81]

You paint with too broad a brush. A liar is one who tells an untruth while knowing full well that it is an untruth. An atheist could very well be mistaken but not necessarily a liar. But s/he is still a human being worthy of respect regardless of what they believe.

He quoted scripture, sir. So if you think scripture paints with too broad a brush that's not good.

 

[d taylor]

You paint with too broad a brush. A liar is one who tells an untruth while knowing full well that it is an untruth. An atheist could very well be mistaken but not necessarily a liar. But s/he is still a human being worthy of respect regardless of what they believe.

It takes a master to paint with a broad brush and i am not speaking of me, i do believe God is swinging the brush.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

He quoted scripture, sir. So if you think scripture paints with too broad a brush that's not good.

Scripture also says to love our enemy and to pray for those who persecute you. Furthermore, given that the original subject is about the accuracy of the bible...to quote scripture in this thread, to back up a point, is circular reasoning and not encouraged.