Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[mindlight]

In a recent discussion an atheist raised the view that a great many modern scholars do not consider the gospels to be eyewitness testimony.

In the words of bhsmte:

"The gospels, don't claim to be eye witness accounts and they were penned by anonymous authors, decades after the supposed events they describe."

Jane_the_Bane said:

"As to the historicity of Jesus: the gospels, as religious literature written by fervent believers decades after the fact, are as unreliable a source as Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's supposed miraculous abilities in translating golden tablets with a seeing stone (just to mention a single example)."

The settled view of the church and the one which accompanied the choosing of the canon was that the authority of these documents rests on the fact that they were direct apostolic testimony to Jesus. So this is quite a serious accusation.

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

 

[HitchSlap]

All four gospels are written in third person narrative, in a country Jesus never visited by authors he never met, and in a language he never spoke. They all borrow heavily from each other, and when they don’t, there are irreconcilable discrepancies.

 

[frater_domus]

Interestin topic, but also a difficult one, as we will never know the truth of the matter, at least until we see Jesus. I can tell you what a pastor has told me:

Yes, the gospel is based on eyewitness accounts, but they were also written down decades after the whole thing has happened and most likely not by the apostles themselves, but by their church communities and not solely based on apostolic accounts but rather all eyewitnesses, that were willing to add. Imagine a scenario, where the gospel is being spread and people, who may have heard it preaches tell it to others. Word travels and inevitably it reaches the respective church communities. They considered it beautiful and wrote it down so that it may be preserved.

This is how it is assumed to have happened. The original manuscripts were never found, only those that followed. Luckily for us, there are a wealth of NT manuscripts and the NT research center in Muenster is able to determine how the original looked like with a high degree of certainty, by cross-referncing all the avaiable ones.

I think this makes sense. Something we tend to forget in our natural egocentric view is that the first generation or Christians were much like us, squishy and imperfect humans. It is too common that we regard them as something far superior given their significance and thus assume that they have left a flawless and perfect document for all the future generations (which they have, but not in the way one may think). But the truth of the matter is that even the apostles doubted and that none of them have seen God. They had many of the same theological concerns we have. Their troubles were different as we all are a product of our time, but we are very much alike. Yes, they saw Jesus and his miracles, death and resurrection. But in many regards they were like you or me. I believe that it is important to remember that. It keeps us grounded.

Does that all mean that the bible is not the inerrant word of God? No. The spiritual message is perfect and inerrant. However, given that it was written down by squishy humans and the presumed way that it was believed to have been recorded, it means that it is not free of historic and worldly inconsistencies or free from cultural bias. In fact, this is how stories of Jesus and the adultress or the ending of Mark, if memory serves me well, managed to get into our modern bibles, even though researchers agree that those were not part of the original manuscripts.
However, they left them in, with a footnote, but still left them. Why? Because they do not take away from the spiritual message.
You see, God’s concerns are not ours. As such, chances are that God cares little for historic or factual accuracies within the bible as opposed to the perfect divine truth within. As such, it is our task to approach the bible intellectually and study it diligently. To understand the context and to peel back the layers of worldly information so that the spiritual truth may be revealed to us. It is like a parable. The meaning is hidden beneath what we receive at face value.
In my eyes, that is the proper way to study the bible. Not literalism, but hermeneutics. Yes, that is much harder, but laziness ain’t on the divine menu

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

Matthew and John are.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Luke never claims to be an eyewitness account, though he does say he based it on investigations of the matter.

What people should remember is that the Gospels are Hellenistic writings. Hellenistic history was not written in the way as we see history today - it was not a bland record of what had occurred. History writing was done in a literary way, with allusions and referencing and typology, even secular history. Lucian wrote a guide to history writing in which he says that even if something didn't happen, but it illustrates how it was or the character of the people described, then it can be legitimately recorded. This is why the wholesale invention of protagonists' speeches was commonplace. It was less about what had happened, but what can be learned from what happened or how it can be used for instruction on how to behave.
For instance, the historians of Alexander all differ on significant details of his life, usually to juxtapose his manly vigour when he lived simply, to the later moral torpor of 'corruption' under Asiatic luxury. So a modern historian has to be careful how he weighs his sources.

Another good example is the death of Socrates. Our two accounts are contemporary to the event, but differ radically, and it doesn't matter. For Plato and Xenophon were writing this history to make a philosophical point.

The same structure is seen in the Gospels. They don't record the bland events, but are elaborated literary constructions. Hence the Sermon on the Mount draws upon the Lawgiver coming off the mountain trope, as an example. So there are discrepancies, but these never bothered anyone until we started forgetting the Classics, and thus how such works were structured. People who think this a damnable point are frankly missing the point entirely. They aren't histories as such, in the modern sense. They are closer in genre perhaps to modern Self-Help books, except that it is about our inability to help ourselves, but to share the good news of Christ's Atonement.

Are they eyewitness accounts? Who knows. Many of Jesus' followers, such as Philip for instance, were certainly Hellenistai. These are Greek-speaking Jews, who embraced a lot of Hellenistic culture. This is in fact how Greek became their home language. So the fact of being written in Greek is immaterial.

As to date, they are dated to 70-110 AD secularly, based on style and content. The theory goes that they record the destruction of the Temple, so had to have been written after it fell. If you accept that this may be a true prophecy, then this point falls away. Thus dates from 50-110 become quite plausible stylistically, so eyewitness accounts are still possible.

They certainly record information from that time, such as Pilate's title being Prefect. Tacitus famously got this wrong, as the title was changed to Procurator after 44 AD. It also has information in common with Josephus, so whoever wrote it, had legitimate information and tradition derived from the early first century.

You should also remember that Mark and Matthew's Greek isn't very good. They are in fact poorly written mostly, to the embarrassment of many Church Fathers like Augustine. They are clearly the work therefore of the semi-literate.
John and Luke are better, though.

So I would argue an argument for Mark and Matthew can be made. Luke doesn't claim to be, and with John it would depend who you are claiming wrote the thing (the identity of the John). But no one knows for sure. They do however maintain quite a lot of legitimate and confirmable early first century information, which speaks to their general reliable derivation from that period ultimately, even if the tradition was only written down later. Their discrepancies are minor and not unexpected in the historiography of the period, as even a cursory glance at the vast 'discrepancies' in secular Roman and Greek historians would make plain.

 

[mindlight]

All four gospels are written in third person narrative

Which was the style of the time and which matched the way that Jesus spoke. Basically a fool was one who testified to himself and an honest man was affirmed by others.

, in a country Jesus never visited

Matthew is traditionally ascribed to Palestine or possibly Syrian Antioch in the 50s. But since the authors are people who all knew Jesus in Israel it is a moot point where the gospels were written.

by authors he never met

Matthew was the Tax Collector disciple of Jesus. John was an apostle. Luke is based on a collation of eyewitness testimony including that of Mary. Mark has faithfully transmitted the testimony of Peter.

, and in a language he never spoke.

Actually it is probable that Jesus did know Greek as did many reasonably educated Jews of his time including Matthew and John for example. There is a discussion as to whether Matthew first penned his gospel in Aramaic.

They all borrow heavily from each other

Or they borrow from a shared oral tradition which already had a settled authority amongst the churches. Similarities between accounts by people who had contact with each other and in a church that was still quite small at the time of the gospels writing does not really detract from their authority at all but rather shows agreement between different writers as to what could be said.

, and when they don’t, there are irreconcilable discrepancies.

There are no irreconcilable discrepancies. But there are different accounts from the perspective of different eyewitnesses to the same events.

 

[mindlight]

Interestin topic, but also a difficult one, as we will never know the truth of the matter, at least until we see Jesus. I can tell you what a pastor has told me:

Yes, the gospel is based on eyewitness accounts, but they were also written down decades after the whole thing has happened and most likely not by the apostles themselves, but by their church communities and not solely based on apostolic accounts but rather all eyewitnesses, that were willing to add. Imagine a scenario, where the gospel is being spread and people, who may have heard it preaches tell it to others. Word travels and inevitably it reaches the respective church communities. They considered it beautiful and wrote it down so that it may be preserved.

This is how it is assumed to have happened. The original manuscripts were never found, only those that followed. Luckily for us, there are a wealth of NT manuscripts and the NT research center in Muenster is able to determine how the original looked like with a high degree of certainty, by cross-referncing all the avaiable ones.

We have fragments going back to within 30 years of the originals. Given the strength of the oral tradition in that culture a distance of a single generation from the actual events is not significant. Itinerant apostles by then would have perfected the gospel message orally and given this as sermons to people all over the Roman world, sermons which locals may well have memorised or written down and repeated also. Given the apostolic mortality rate there was a need to write this stuff down before apostles were killed however

I think this makes sense. Something we tend to forget in our natural egocentric view is that the first generation or Christians were much like us, squishy and imperfect humans. It is too common that we regard them as something far superior given their significance and thus assume that they have left a flawless and perfect document for all the future generations (which they have, but not in the way one may think). But the truth of the matter is that even the apostles doubted and that none of them have seen God. They had many of the same theological concerns we have. Their troubles were different as we all are a product of our time, but we are very much alike. Yes, they saw Jesus and his miracles, death and resurrection. But in many regards they were like you or me. I believe that it is important to remember that. It keeps us grounded.

Does that all mean that the bible is not the inerrant word of God? No. The spiritual message is perfect and inerrant. However, given that it was written down by squishy humans and the presumed way that it was believed to have been recorded, it means that it is not free of historic and worldly inconsistencies or free from cultural bias. In fact, this is how stories of Jesus and the adultress or the ending of Mark, if memory serves me well, managed to get into our modern bibles, even though researchers agree that those were not part of the original manuscripts.
However, they left them in, with a footnote, but still left them. Why? Because they do not take away from the spiritual message.
You see, God’s concerns are not ours. As such, chances are that God cares little for historic or factual accuracies within the bible as opposed to the perfect divine truth within. As such, it is our task to approach the bible intellectually and study it diligently. To understand the context and to peel back the layers of worldly information so that the spiritual truth may be revealed to us. It is like a parable. The meaning is hidden beneath what we receive at face value.
In my eyes, that is the proper way to study the bible. Not literalism, but hermeneutics. Yes, that is much harder, but laziness ain’t on the divine menu

That sounded quite Gnostic and tends towards the idea that we need trained professional theologians to dig out the truthes of the gospel for us. It is not a view that has served the German church very well in the last 100 years. Yes these are human beings and yes their testimony has the hallmark of honesty because it is not perfectly coordinated. But so also the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the message He wanted in these texts.

 

[HereIStand]

The Gospels are indeed eyewitness testimony. This book provides an extensive argument supporting that.

 

[mindlight]

Luke never claims to be an eyewitness account, though he does say he based it on investigations of the matter.

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

What people should remember is that the Gospels are Hellenistic writings. Hellenistic history was not written in the way as we see history today - it was not a bland record of what had occurred. History writing was done in a literary way, with allusions and referencing and typology, even secular history. Lucian wrote a guide to history writing in which he says that even if something didn't happen, but it illustrates how it was or the character of the people described, then it can be legitimately recorded. This is why the wholesale invention of protagonists' speeches was commonplace. It was less about what had happened, but what can be learned from what happened or how it can be used for instruction on how to behave.
For instance, the historians of Alexander all differ on significant details of his life, usually to juxtapose his manly vigour when he lived simply, to the later moral torpor of 'corruption' under Asiatic luxury. So a modern historian has to be careful how he weighs his sources.

Another good example is the death of Socrates. Our two accounts are contemporary to the event, but differ radically, and it doesn't matter. For Plato and Xenophon were writing this history to make a philosophical point.

The same structure is seen in the Gospels. They don't record the bland events, but are elaborated literary constructions. Hence the Sermon on the Mount draws upon the Lawgiver coming off the mountain trope, as an example. So there are discrepancies, but these never bothered anyone until we started forgetting the Classics, and thus how such works were structured. People who think this a damnable point are frankly missing the point entirely. They aren't histories as such, in the modern sense. They are closer in genre perhaps to modern Self-Help books, except that it is about our inability to help ourselves, but to share the good news of Christ's Atonement.

Hellenists had a certain style but the extent to which Jewish authors of the gospels mimicked that is highly disputable. Even Luke (a Gentile) makes the point of carefully investigating the eyewitness testimony handed to him.

Are they eyewitness accounts? Who knows. Many of Jesus' followers, such as Philip for instance, were certainly Hellenistai. These are Greek-speaking Jews, who embraced a lot of Hellenistic culture. This is in fact how Greek became their home language. So the fact of being written in Greek is immaterial.

As to date, they are dated to 70-110 AD secularly, based on style and content. The theory goes that they record the destruction of the Temple, so had to have been written after it fell. If you accept that this may be a true prophecy, then this point falls away. Thus dates from 50-110 become quite plausible stylistically, so eyewitness accounts are still possible.

Any dating that relies on a rejection of prophecy or supernatural elements has to be suspect so the earlier dates are more probable.

They certainly record information from that time, such as Pilate's title being Prefect. Tacitus famously got this wrong, as the title was changed to Procurator after 44 AD. It also has information in common with Josephus, so whoever wrote it, had legitimate information and tradition derived from the early first century.

Absolutely

You should also remember that Mark and Matthew's Greek isn't very good. They are in fact poorly written mostly, to the embarrassment of many Church Fathers like Augustine. They are clearly the work therefore of the semi-literate.

Which does not contradict the view that a fisherman and a tax collector may be the authors or main sources for the authors as Early church fathers like Papias confirms.

John and Luke are better, though.

So I would argue an argument for Mark and Matthew can be made. Luke doesn't claim to be, and with John it would depend who you are claiming wrote the thing (the identity of the John). But no one knows for sure. They do however maintain quite a lot of legitimate and confirmable early first century information, which speaks to their general reliable derivation from that period ultimately, even if the tradition was only written down later. Their discrepancies are minor and not unexpected in the historiography of the period, as even a cursory glance at the vast 'discrepancies' in secular Roman and Greek historians would make plain.

John wrote John.

John 20:30-31
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Clement of Alexandria wrote that the gospel was written later than the other three by John and as a supplement to them. The Gospel was traditionally published in Ephesus.

The gospel is written in the style of an eyewitness to the events described and is by an apostle (the disciple who Jesus loved) but one who is too modest to simply declare his name. It makes no sense for a third party author to use this description of the author and so it is most likely John.

 

[frater_domus]

That sounded quite Gnostic and tends towards the idea that we need trained professional theologians to dig out the truthes of the gospel for us. It is not a view that has served the German church very well in the last 100 years. Yes these are human beings and yes their testimony has the hallmark of honesty because it is not perfectly coordinated. But so also the Holy Spirit was able to preserve the message He wanted in these texts.

What I meant to say is that literalism will not serve us well. True understanding comes from God and as such anyone whom God blesses with knowledge can understand it. But to take everything at face value without digging deeper does great disservice to the word of God.

I agree on the assertion that the Holy Spirit preserving the message that needed to be preserved. That is precisely my point. Why do worldly inconsistencies matter so long as the divine truth within the bible is preserved, which is has been.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Hellenists had a certain style but the extent to which Jewish authors of the gospels mimicked that is highly disputable. Even Luke (a Gentile) makes the point of carefully investigating the eyewitness testimony handed to him.

Which is all in keeping with Hellenistic historiography. Luke/Acts is clearly written by the rules of Greek histories, from its preamble, to placing long speeches in the mouths of protagonists. Arrian or Tacitus also mentions perusing eyewitness accounts and so forth. The idea of an external objective valence of events is really not an ancient thing, and you'll find no account, in any culture, before about the 17th-18th century that even attempts this. This is one of the pitfalls of history, that they aren't written with the aim of being 'histories' as we understand the term.

Any dating that relies on a rejection of prophecy or supernatural elements has to be suspect so the earlier dates are more probable.

Agreed, but you and I are religious. I was merely explaining why Atheists reject the earlier dates: "Jesus mentioned the temple being destroyed, so it had to have been written after 70 AD."
They do the same trick with Daniel. If you try and be as objective as possible about it, you need to address it and explain from whence you derive your dates, though.

Which does not contradict the view that a fisherman and a tax collector may be the authors or main sources for the authors as Early church fathers like Papias confirms.

Agreed. It would in fact have been problematic if they were. To play devil's advocate though, one could argue this is why they were ascribed to them.
By the by, upon what are you basing the assertion Mark was a fisherman? I know he is supposed to be related to Peter, and sometimes connected to the man fleeing Gethsemane, before going to Alexandria, but I am not familiar with specifics for that claim.

John wrote John.

John 20:30-31
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Clement of Alexandria wrote that the gospel was written later than the other three by John and as a supplement to them. The Gospel was traditionally published in Ephesus.

The gospel is written in the style of an eyewitness to the events described and is by an apostle (the disciple who Jesus loved) but one who is too modest to simply declare his name. It makes no sense for a third party author to use this description of the author and so it is most likely John.

I know that tradition, which is the mainstream one. Others have argued John to be the same as Lazarus, or John the Presbyter (seen as a separate person in this argument), etc. I've even heard people argue he was a previous High Priest! Don't take offense, I was just covering the bases of the multifarious opinions. For in general, all agree John is the latest, but some argue it can't be an eyewitness based on who they think wrote it. Its Greek is a bit too polished for a Fisherman from Galilee though, but maybe he studied later in life? This has been why it has been seen as suspect though.

The various possible Johns had been discussed at length in this thread, for instance:
Where was John before Patmos?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

Even BETTER THAN THAT !

Yahweh's Word, By Him Authored/Inspired- Breathed in and Through Those Men He Called and Chose Himself, His Way,
and He Watches Over His Word and Guards His Word even more than His Own Name.

 

[Not David]

Two apostles, a disciple of Peter and Paul, and another disciple of Paul. That's the closest thing to eyewitnesses. Of course liberal scholars are going to push to the idea they weren't the authors or eyewitnesses because they tried to show the books aren't inspired by God.

 

[Barney2.0]

All four gospels are written in third person narrative, in a country Jesus never visited by authors he never met, and in a language he never spoke. They all borrow heavily from each other, and when they don’t, there are irreconcilable discrepancies.

All four Gospels were written either by the disciples or their students, Jesus Christ not visiting certain countries in where the Bible was written is irrelevant, Jesus Christ could speak Greek, and they didn’t borrow from each other as we see many differences between the accounts of the four Gospels.

 

[Anguspure]

In a recent discussion an atheist raised the view that a great many modern scholars do not consider the gospels to be eyewitness testimony.

In the words of bhsmte:

"The gospels, don't claim to be eye witness accounts and they were penned by anonymous authors, decades after the supposed events they describe."

Jane_the_Bane said:

"As to the historicity of Jesus: the gospels, as religious literature written by fervent believers decades after the fact, are as unreliable a source as Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's supposed miraculous abilities in translating golden tablets with a seeing stone (just to mention a single example)."

The settled view of the church and the one which accompanied the choosing of the canon was that the authority of these documents rests on the fact that they were direct apostolic testimony to Jesus. So this is quite a serious accusation.

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

The opposition cannot afford to consider that they are eye witness accounts. A few hundred years after would suit them for thier arguments. Nevertheless there is absolutley no reason to suggest that any of the gospels were written beyond the second half of the 1st century.
Furthermore, the central doctrine of Christianity can be found narrated in a letter written to a church that may have been written within 5 years (but certainly not more than 10) of the events recorded in the gospels. This would make attacks on the age of the gospels a little bit of a moot point as far as discrediting what matters.

 

[Abraxos]

In a recent discussion an atheist raised the view that a great many modern scholars do not consider the gospels to be eyewitness testimony.

In the words of bhsmte:

"The gospels, don't claim to be eye witness accounts and they were penned by anonymous authors, decades after the supposed events they describe."

Jane_the_Bane said:

"As to the historicity of Jesus: the gospels, as religious literature written by fervent believers decades after the fact, are as unreliable a source as Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's supposed miraculous abilities in translating golden tablets with a seeing stone (just to mention a single example)."

The settled view of the church and the one which accompanied the choosing of the canon was that the authority of these documents rests on the fact that they were direct apostolic testimony to Jesus. So this is quite a serious accusation.

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

If one goes looking for the "anonymous" copies of the Gospels that probably most of us heard about, you'd be hard pressed to find any. Fact is, of all the thousands of manuscripts (over 25,000 copies) of the four Gospels that exist, they are all titled to their respective authors - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. To say the authors of the Gospels were anonymous is to virtually ignore all the evidence from the earliest Greek manuscripts and most of the ancient Christian writers. According to the basic rules of textual criticism, if anything is original in the titles, it is the names of the authors - and that is coming from Bart Ehrman's own text-critical criterion.

Ultimately, there is no foundation for this theory of the anonymous Gospels. It is merely conventional wisdom once again being blindly accepted by atheists and those that rub noses with them etc without critical evaluation.

 

[mindlight]

What I meant to say is that literalism will not serve us well. True understanding comes from God and as such anyone whom God blesses with knowledge can understand it. But to take everything at face value without digging deeper does great disservice to the word of God.

I agree on the assertion that the Holy Spirit preserving the message that needed to be preserved. That is precisely my point. Why do worldly inconsistencies matter so long as the divine truth within the bible is preserved, which is has been.

Of course there are depths to scripture worth mining. But parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally being written in a literal historical style. Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died, Jesus rose, Jesus ascended are all literal concepts. Of course they mean much more than just a birth, a death etc but unless you accept that Jesus came in the flesh and experienced the literal historical reality described in scripture then you are not encountering Him in scripture. That human context is the context in which He reveals His Divine nature.

What worldly inconsistencies exist in the scriptures as originally given?

 

[mindlight]

Which is all in keeping with Hellenistic historiography. Luke/Acts is clearly written by the rules of Greek histories, from its preamble, to placing long speeches in the mouths of protagonists. Arrian or Tacitus also mentions perusing eyewitness accounts and so forth. The idea of an external objective valence of events is really not an ancient thing, and you'll find no account, in any culture, before about the 17th-18th century that even attempts this. This is one of the pitfalls of history, that they aren't written with the aim of being 'histories' as we understand the term.

Yes of course it is not history as in the modern term but it is different from accounts of Greek gods or the tale of the Iliad for instance. Peter and John were fisherman , plain speaking and down to earth. Matthew also was a Jew. While the Greeks had their ideas and would discuss them endlessly in some blue sky chaos. Jews were grounded in historical revelation and action. So we cannot take this as being in the same genre as the Hellenistic writings including things like the apocryphal literature because it was grounded in real experience, real events and an entirely different culture to the Greeks. Stylistic similarities were required to sell the credibility of the literature but the apostles did not become Greeks when they wrote or dictated the gospels. The apostles may have borrowed the language of the day to write it all down but they were still Jews.

Agreed, but you and I are religious. I was merely explaining why Atheists reject the earlier dates: "Jesus mentioned the temple being destroyed, so it had to have been written after 70 AD."
They do the same trick with Daniel. If you try and be as objective as possible about it, you need to address it and explain from whence you derive your dates, though.

Half the theologians in Germany are atheists which is a pointless waste of church and tax payers money in my view. But atheists have little of value to contribute to understanding scripture as it is given that they miss the central character to the entire plot. The focus on being a professional in how you handle a crowd of liberals and atheists views on this or that particular theological matter is the curse of the church here.

Agreed. It would in fact have been problematic if they were. To play devil's advocate though, one could argue this is why they were ascribed to them.
By the by, upon what are you basing the assertion Mark was a fisherman? I know he is supposed to be related to Peter, and sometimes connected to the man fleeing Gethsemane, before going to Alexandria, but I am not familiar with specifics for that claim.

No sorry , maybe I was not that clear, I meant Peter was a fisherman and Mark was therefore quoting or drafting the words of a fisherman.

I know that tradition, which is the mainstream one. Others have argued John to be the same as Lazarus, or John the Presbyter (seen as a separate person in this argument), etc. I've even heard people argue he was a previous High Priest! Don't take offense, I was just covering the bases of the multifarious opinions.

Maybe in your world that is necessary. But there is no need to dwell on an alternate opinion too much when it has been refuted. The suggestion of alternatives also weakens the witness to what we know is true. Again the requirement of looking professional when discussing this gives too much credence to people who should not be in the discussion at all cause they do not even believe in God or what He is capable of.

For in general, all agree John is the latest, but some argue it can't be an eyewitness based on who they think wrote it. Its Greek is a bit too polished for a Fisherman from Galilee though, but maybe he studied later in life? This has been why it has been seen as suspect though.

The various possible Johns had been discussed at length in this thread, for instance:
Where was John before Patmos?

It is possible that John had help drafting his gospel. That would not be problematic to his essential apostolic witness. I am sure there were a great many top notch scholars in the early church who would have been more than happy to edit his Greek and get it up to scratch.

 

[mindlight]

Even BETTER THAN THAT !

Yahweh's Word, By Him Authored/Inspired- Breathed in and Through Those Men He Called and Chose Himself, His Way,
and He Watches Over His Word and Guards His Word even more than His Own Name.

Yes you are right the essential answer to the question

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

is yes AND MUCH MORE!!!!!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes of course it is not history as in the modern term but it is different from accounts of Greek gods or the tale of the Iliad for instance. Peter and John were fisherman , plain speaking and down to earth. Matthew also was a Jew. While the Greeks had their ideas and would discuss them endlessly in some blue sky chaos. Jews were grounded in historical revelation and action. So we cannot take this as being in the same genre as the Hellenistic writings including things like the apocryphal literature because it was grounded in real experience, real events and an entirely different culture to the Greeks. Stylistic similarities were required to sell the credibility of the literature but the apostles did not become Greeks when they wrote or dictated the gospels. The apostles may have borrowed the language of the day to write it all down but they were still Jews.

I am not refering to the Poets, but the historiographers. So less the Iliad or Aenead, and more the Annals or such. The Gospels squarely fall in the same class of writings as Thucydides or Tacitus, Ctesias or Josephus. These were all grounded on real events, but there simply was not the same idea of how they were to be written. Parallels and literary tropes were expected, as the goal was instruction, as much or more than merely giving information.
Jewish writers like Josephus or Philo were cut from the same cloth during the period.
Again, they or their intended audience might have been Hellenistai, so had been substantially Hellenised during the preceding 300 or so years. Even the Hasmonaean state was heavily influenced thereby.

It does not lose credibility because it is susceptible to the same literary culture of the period's secular histories. If you doubt the Gospels on this account, then you should be doubting all the ancient historians. Such radical scepticism leaves us unable to say much at all, which was my point as to the trustworthiness of the Gospels in general.

Yes you are right the essential answer to the question

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

is yes AND MUCH MORE!!!!!

I think there is a semantic difference between posters here, of what is meant by an 'eyewitness account'. One could argue Matthew and John as eyewitnesses; but Luke explicitly says he based his account off of eyewitnesses, and Mark is presumed to be Peter's account, so the latter two are thus second hand accounts of eyewitnesses, not such accounts themselves.