Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[Steve Petersen]

Why don't you start with the fact that we all share the 66 books of the Protestant bible, where Masoretic and Septuagint confirm the OT choices and then ask why some Christians choose also to accept extra books.

The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement.

The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia"

The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians

The Eastern Syriac churches use the Peshitta, the New Testament of only 22 books

 

[Ana the Ist]

MOst of Pauls letters are pretty uncontroversial in terms of authorship even amongst liberal academics who do not have the Holy Spirit.

Sure...that doesn't answer all those questions though.

There was an acceptance quite early on which books had authority and which less so. This was demonstrated by usage and there is the Muratorian fragment from 170 which is a pretty early endorsement of a NT list

Muratorian fragment - Wikipedia

From your link...

"The definitive formation of the New Testament canon did not occur until 367, when bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in his annual Easter letter composed the list that is still recognised today as the canon of 27 books. However, it would take several more centuries of debates until agreement on Athanasius' canon had been reached within all of Christendom."

So it was the middle of the fourth century before the modern bible began to take shape...and centuries still before the rest of christianity agreed to it.

Basically if church x and church y were both using the same text from an early date , despite being in completely different church hierarchies and locations that was an endorsement of the texts authority.

There were multiple churches using the Infancy gospels early on....that doesn't make them authentic.

So most of Pauls letters and the 4 gospels were in widespread use , early on. If these books are being quoted in burial artifacts, church liturgies, hymnology, church fathers etc then that is a further endorsement of them.

None of which makes them authentic. You're confusing popularity with authenticity.

Usage was a test of validity even if it was not regarded as such at the time.

Usage doesn't validate anything now....it certainly doesn't validate anything back then.

The selection of the canon did not require the endorsement of unbelieving liberal scholars when it was formed and does not need that now.

Of course not...

We aren't talking about why canon was selected though....we are talking about validity.

It is the community of believers that know which texts are of God and which not,

Oh?

because they share the Spirit that inspired them and because these texts were written by those closest to Jesus and endorsed with his authority. The final selection process was made with reference to a church much closer to the events, probably in possession of original texts and in consensus about which books worked and which ones did not.

So if a next text was unearthed today....all "believers" would agree on its authenticity?

That seems like a rather silly idea.

 

[mindlight]

The New Testament of the Coptic Bible, adopted by the Egyptian Church, includes the two Epistles of Clement.

The "broader" Ethiopian New Testament canon includes four books of "Sinodos" (church practices), two "Books of Covenant", "Ethiopic Clement", and "Ethiopic Didascalia"

The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians

The Eastern Syriac churches use the Peshitta, the New Testament of only 22 books

As a % of the total Christian population these churches are what 3 or 4%.

Their canon choices would not effect status as Christian churches or the salvation of their members but clearly has minor implications for secondary doctrines.

Regarding the thesis of the OP that the gospels are eyewitness testimony to the life of Christ they have no impact unless you can find a verse in one of these extra texts that contradicts the idea of eyewitness testimony. But even if you could it is clear that 97% of the church do not regard this as authoritative.

 

[mindlight]

Sure...that doesn't answer all those questions though.


From your link...

"The definitive formation of the New Testament canon did not occur until 367, when bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in his annual Easter letter composed the list that is still recognised today as the canon of 27 books. However, it would take several more centuries of debates until agreement on Athanasius' canon had been reached within all of Christendom."

So it was the middle of the fourth century before the modern bible began to take shape...and centuries still before the rest of christianity agreed to it.



There were multiple churches using the Infancy gospels early on....that doesn't make them authentic.



None of which makes them authentic. You're confusing popularity with authenticity.




Usage doesn't validate anything now....it certainly doesn't validate anything back then.




Of course not...

We aren't talking about why canon was selected though....we are talking about validity.



Oh?




So if a next text was unearthed today....all "believers" would agree on its authenticity?

That seems like a rather silly idea.

This line of argument seems a little off track re the OP. There is no disagreement about the use of the 4 gospels across all the churches and the Muratorian canon affirms a canon including these as early as 170AD. It is possible someone alive in 170 could have even seen original texts in the churches. There is nothing here that contradicts the idea of eyewitness testimony.

 

[Steve Petersen]

As a % of the total Christian population these churches are what 3 or 4%.

Their canon choices would not effect status as Christian churches or the salvation of their members but clearly has minor implications for secondary doctrines.

Regarding the thesis of the OP that the gospels are eyewitness testimony to the life of Christ they have no impact unless you can find a verse in one of these extra texts that contradicts the idea of eyewitness testimony. But even if you could it is clear that 97% of the church do not regard this as authoritative.

Let me reacquaint you with your assertion. Emphasis mine:

Why don't you start with the fact that we all share the 66 books of the Protestant bible, where Masoretic and Septuagint confirm the OT choices and then ask why some Christians choose also to accept extra books.

 

[mindlight]

Let me reacquaint you with your assertion. Emphasis mine:

Since that is true of 97% of the church and all the bits that I recognise as having a legitimate rationale for their canon "fact" seems about right. The exceptions you quote are marginal or declining churches and very much the exception with their extra canon choices or subtractions. The main Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Pentecostal churches all agree on those 66 books as a basic recognised shared core for the bible canon. But 100% of the church, even its cults accept the 4 gospels which is the focus of the OP.

It is clear from church history that the gospels are dated back to the time of eyewitnesses to the events they describe, referencing figures that could confirm the events described in them and are written in testimonial format. The overwhelming volume of quotes etc affirms the value and authority attributed to these witness statements by the early church

 

[Ana the Ist]

This line of argument seems a little off track re the OP. There is no disagreement about the use of the 4 gospels across all the churches and the Muratorian canon affirms a canon including these as early as 170AD.

Per your link, 170AD is the oldest possible date for that text.

It is possible someone alive in 170 could have even seen original texts in the churches.

If they were 100 years old? And had a remarkable memory that allowed them to remember what they read at 1 year old?

There is nothing here that contradicts the idea of eyewitness testimony.

Other than the lack of eyewitness testimony and the haphazard way these texts were decided upon as authentic 100+ years later....

Face it, there's no good reason to believe they are eyewitness testimony.

 

[mindlight]

Per your link, 170AD is the oldest possible date for that text.



If they were 100 years old? And had a remarkable memory that allowed them to remember what they read at 1 year old?



Other than the lack of eyewitness testimony and the haphazard way these texts were decided upon as authentic 100+ years later....

Face it, there's no good reason to believe they are eyewitness testimony.

If the grandfather knew John and told the father this was the text that John gave and then later his grandson as a small child. If the paper looked the right age and the text resonated with other OT and NT texts and the father and grandfather were of good character then trusting them would not be that hard to do. You would have met a primary eyewitness to the event that you trusted and still see the text in front of you.

170 AD allows for numerous such trust chains to coalese and complement each other and reinforce the conviction that what was passed down was a written record of the events described.

The texts themselves very often tell you who the eyewitness was and the chain of witnesses is a trust worthy one and the text itself is written in a testimonial style.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If the grandfather knew John and told the father this was the text that John gave and then later his grandson as a small child. If the paper looked the right age and the text resonated with other OT and NT texts and the father and grandfather were of good character then trusting them would not be that hard to do. You would have met a primary eyewitness to the event that you trusted and still see the text in front of you.

I'm sorry, who is the primary witness in this scenario?

170 AD allows for numerous such trust chains to coalese and complement each other and reinforce the conviction that what was passed down was a written record of the events described.

If it was indeed 170AD and that was indeed how such manuscripts were verified....but there's no evidence of that happening. Those who put the bible together in the late 300s didn't go around to all the churches asking for "who had a great great great great grandfather who verified the contents of this text as an eyewitness?"

That's absurd.

The texts themselves very often tell you who the eyewitness was and the chain of witnesses is a trust worthy one and the text itself is written in a testimonial style.

Really?? Do you have a particular example that you feel is a strong one for the gospels?

 

[mindlight]

I'm sorry, who is the primary witness in this scenario?



If it was indeed 170AD and that was indeed how such manuscripts were verified....but there's no evidence of that happening. Those who put the bible together in the late 300s didn't go around to all the churches asking for "who had a great great great great grandfather who verified the contents of this text as an eyewitness?"

That's absurd.



Really?? Do you have a particular example that you feel is a strong one for the gospels?

You are not understanding the argument or are being obtuse. I will try again:

John writes gospel 85AD
Primary Witness 1(PW1) - born 65AD, 20 year old witness to John and his gospel - sees text deposited in church safekeeping and in regular use.

PW1 has a child 85AD (PW2)
PW2 sees text in church 105AD and is reliably informed by PW1 that it is the text left by John whom they remember as an old man from their own childhood (he died in 100AD when they were 15 yo) and saw him read the text and affirm the text as his own.
PW2 has a child 105AD (PW3) - this child is 65 at time of Muratorian canon being written.
PW3 knows PW1 as an adult, sees text in the church and is reliably informed by PW1 and PW2 this is the original text from the apostle they both knew.

Now actually there were 100 PW1s in a normal church and each had 3-4 kids (2 reach adulthood) then each of these has 3-4 kids with 2 reaching adulthood.

IN 170AD assuming all PW1s are dead (105 yo is not impossible) there are 600 people who had direct experience of the Primary witnesses and secondary witnesses of the events described. Some of the PW2s were probably still alive in 170 AD and had direct experience of the apostle and had seen him with his text.

Of course this all assumes the church has no visitors from other churches and does not communicate at all with these.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's one heck of a lot of "ifs".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If the OP is right, then what ?

 

[mindlight]

That's one heck of a lot of "ifs".

That was actually a fairly conservative view of the witness chain. In practice we are probably talking about thousands of witnesses to cover the 70 year gap between the death of the last apostle in 100AD and the Muratorian canon. They reinforce and affirm each other and some may have been living witnesses to the life of the apostle and to a direct affirmation of the text by him

 

[Tinker Grey]

That was actually a fairly conservative view of the witness chain. In practice we are probably talking about thousands of witnesses to cover the 70 year gap between the death of the last apostle in 100AD and the Muratorian canon. They reinforce and affirm each other and some may have been living witnesses to the life of the apostle and to a direct affirmation of the text by him

Yeah. I'm not gonna base my life on a 1000-person long whisper game.

 

[mindlight]

Yeah. I'm not gonna base my life on a 1000-person long whisper game.

It is 1,2 or maybe 3 long person chains multiplied by a thousand and reinforcing, complementing and affirming each others testimonies. A 1000 person long chain of Chinese whispers would be useless.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is 1,2 or maybe 3 long person chains multiplied by a thousand and reinforcing, complementing and affirming each others testimonies.

For which there is no evidence.

 

[mindlight]

For which there is no evidence.

We have the Muratorian canon dated 170AD affirming Johns gospel as a text of the church, the last apostle John dying 100AD and his gospel dated 85AD. A fragment of his gospel dated 125 AD (Rylands). The 70 year gap between the living apostles death and its inclusion in the first canon can quite easily include a comprehensive and continuous witness chain that may include hundreds even thousands of witnesses, some of whom wrote about or quoted from the gospel.

The evidence is there it is only the faith that is lacking.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Gospels are eyewitness accounts

Suppose they are.

You don't believe faith healers on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through chakra alignment. You don't believe Muhammad experienced divine revelations. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. Millions of Chinese peasants throughout history will tell you eating rhinoceros horn and dried tiger penis has cured them or their family members of all manner of ailments, yet you don't believe that. If I told you right here and now that I saw someone fly to Chicago yesterday by flapping their arms up and down, you wouldn't believe that either. And so forth.

You don't accept 'eyewitness accounts' as evidence for extraordinary claims. Neither do I.

The only difference is, I apply that standard consistently, while you do not.

 

[mindlight]

Suppose they are.

You don't believe faith healers on the streets of Calcutta can cure disease through chakra alignment. You don't believe Muhammad experienced divine revelations. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. Millions of Chinese peasants throughout history will tell you eating rhinoceros horn and dried tiger penis has cured them or their family members of all manner of ailments, yet you don't believe that. If I told you right here and now that I saw someone fly to Chicago yesterday by flapping their arms up and down, you wouldn't believe that either. And so forth.

You don't accept 'eyewitness accounts' as evidence for extraordinary claims. Neither do I.

The only difference is, I apply that standard consistently, while you do not.

No the difference is knowing when the eyewitness is telling the truth or not. At the end of the day if you discount all testimony you believe in nothing at all and that is not sustainable for normal life.

I testified to the police about a man who hit me the other day in an unprovoked assault on the street. I went into the police station with my wife and child with a big bruise and blood on my face. The first time my assailant hit me he cut his hand on my bag. So the second time he left his blood on my face. DNA analysis later proved that the blood belonged to a convicted felon , living in my area, with a 19 year long record of criminal activity who I described to the police before they made the match. He will now be prosecuted for his crime. I have no criminal record and was a believable witness, my testimony checked out.
So there is such thing as believable and actionable testimony.

The fact is the bible witnesses are believable and speak about a person who is worth believing in.