Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[mindlight]

*nods*

I can appreciate that sentiment.

I would say similarly about my personal experiences with the Buddha's message.

We cannot both be right.

 

[HitchSlap]

 

[HitchSlap]

We cannot both be right.

Obviously, you are both right.

 

[mindlight]

Oh good grief. Now you are just spouting propaganda. Why don,t you try and argue an example.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh good grief. Now you are just spouting propaganda. Why don,t you try and argue an example.

Hand waving won't make it go away.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Matthew and John are.

The authors of the Gospels are NEVER NAMED in the texts themselves. Assigning apostolic authorship to the Gospels is PURELY based on church tradition.

 

[ananda]

We cannot both be right.

Why not? Individual experiences are "correct" insomuch as they are validly experienced - for the individual.

 

[Steve Petersen]

We have fragments going back to within 30 years of the originals.

Which fragments are those?

 

[Barney2.0]

CS is a fourth century work. Try again.

Nope, it dates back to the 2nd century.

 

[Barney2.0]

Codex Sinaticus is dated centuries after the formation of the gospels. My understanding is that the 4 gospels were in fact not signed by authors who did not want to draw any attention to themselves at the expense of Christ. John calls himself "the disciple Jesus loves" to point out he is a direct witness but without distracting from Christ. Apparently sacred history as with Joshua in the OT followed a similar format of anonymity. In fact it was the later false gospels like of Peter and Thomas where the signing started. So it seems the later church added a title page to distinguish from the false gospels and as a part of a formal process that would lead to the formation of the canon. When the evangelists wrote the gospels they were the only show in town so they hardly needed to claim an authority everybody already understood.

It’s was probably written merely a decade later.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Nope, it dates back to the 2nd century.

Fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus - About Codex Sinaiticus

 

[mindlight]

Which fragments are those?

P52 assuming a late date for John - but actually 50 years is closer.
/P64 assuming an early date for Mark and that there is enough there to form a solid conclusion
/P67

 

[Barney2.0]

CS is a fourth century work. Try again.

The historical archaeological and literary evidence also demonstrates that in the first century A.D. books were written and published with the title and name of the author placed at the end of the papyrus roll (also sometimes in the front) on which they were written or copied and on a tag attached to the outside of the papyrus roll called in Greek, a sillybos and in Latin a titulus. They were not usually placed in the text itself.

This was the normal custom of identifying the author of a book in the Roman world in the first century. The author did not normally identify himself in the text itself, but like today’s title page, his name was placed along with a title in a location on the document but outside the text. Several rolled up papyrus rolls would be stored in a round canister called a capsa with their tags placed at their tops so each roll could be easily identified.

There is no historical archaeological or literary evidence that the four NT gospels did not follow this normal custom of having the names of the authors of the gospels identified in this way when they first published and distributed their original gospels and their copies. All subsequent copies of papyrus rolls would also follow this practice.

In fact, as we have demonstrated in our article entitled “Authorship of the NT Gospels” the authors of the four NT gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were well-known as the authors and their authorship was never disputed by the early church.

The early church fathers wrote about the circumstances surrounding the publishing of the four NT gospels. They never indicate that there was any anonymity or mystery surrounding the publishing of the gospels. They indicate their confident knowledge about who wrote the gospels, why they were written, and the general time period they were written.

The historical literary evidence from the early church fathers concerning each of the gospels and their publishing is summarized here by looking at the testimony of Irenaeus:

“MATTHEW ALSO ISSUED A WRITTEN GOSPEL AMONG THE HEBREWS IN THEIR OWN DIALECT, WHILE PETER AND PAUL WERE PREACHING AT ROME, AND LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH. AFTER THEIR DEPARTURE, MARK, THE DISCIPLE AND INTERPRETER OF PETER, DID ALSO HAND DOWN TO US IN WRITING WHAT HAD BEEN PREACHED BY PETER. LUKE ALSO, THE COMPANION OF PAUL, RECORDED IN A BOOK THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY HIM. AFTERWARDS, JOHN, THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, WHO ALSO HAD LEANED UPON HIS BREAST, DID HIMSELF PUBLISH A GOSPEL DURING HIS RESIDENCE AT EPHESUS IN ASIA” (AGAINST HERESIES 3.1.1).

Are the Gospels Anonymous? - Christian Worldview Press

Are the Four Gospels Anonymous? - A Clear Lens

The Gospels Aren’t Anonymous » Undivided Looking

 

[Barney2.0]

Fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus - About Codex Sinaiticus

It appears I confused it with the Didache, either way the Didache also contains the titles according to Matthew etc.

 

[Steve Petersen]

P52 assuming a late date for John - but actually 50 years is closer.
/P64 assuming an early date for Mark and that there is enough there to form a solid conclusion
/P67

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

Magdalen papyrus - Wikipedia

Neither of these proposes a fragment anywhere near 30 years after Jesus except a controversial opinion on P64.

 

[HitchSlap]

The historical archaeological and literary evidence also demonstrates that in the first century A.D. books were written and published with the title and name of the author placed at the end of the papyrus roll (also sometimes in the front) on which they were written or copied and on a tag attached to the outside of the papyrus roll called in Greek, a sillybos and in Latin a titulus. They were not usually placed in the text itself.

This was the normal custom of identifying the author of a book in the Roman world in the first century. The author did not normally identify himself in the text itself, but like today’s title page, his name was placed along with a title in a location on the document but outside the text. Several rolled up papyrus rolls would be stored in a round canister called a capsa with their tags placed at their tops so each roll could be easily identified.

There is no historical archaeological or literary evidence that the four NT gospels did not follow this normal custom of having the names of the authors of the gospels identified in this way when they first published and distributed their original gospels and their copies. All subsequent copies of papyrus rolls would also follow this practice.

In fact, as we have demonstrated in our article entitled “Authorship of the NT Gospels” the authors of the four NT gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were well-known as the authors and their authorship was never disputed by the early church.

The early church fathers wrote about the circumstances surrounding the publishing of the four NT gospels. They never indicate that there was any anonymity or mystery surrounding the publishing of the gospels. They indicate their confident knowledge about who wrote the gospels, why they were written, and the general time period they were written.

The historical literary evidence from the early church fathers concerning each of the gospels and their publishing is summarized here by looking at the testimony of Irenaeus:

“MATTHEW ALSO ISSUED A WRITTEN GOSPEL AMONG THE HEBREWS IN THEIR OWN DIALECT, WHILE PETER AND PAUL WERE PREACHING AT ROME, AND LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH. AFTER THEIR DEPARTURE, MARK, THE DISCIPLE AND INTERPRETER OF PETER, DID ALSO HAND DOWN TO US IN WRITING WHAT HAD BEEN PREACHED BY PETER. LUKE ALSO, THE COMPANION OF PAUL, RECORDED IN A BOOK THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY HIM. AFTERWARDS, JOHN, THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, WHO ALSO HAD LEANED UPON HIS BREAST, DID HIMSELF PUBLISH A GOSPEL DURING HIS RESIDENCE AT EPHESUS IN ASIA” (AGAINST HERESIES 3.1.1).

Are the Gospels Anonymous? - Christian Worldview Press

Are the Four Gospels Anonymous? - A Clear Lens

The Gospels Aren’t Anonymous » Undivided Looking

Tertullian clearly didn't have access to the information we have now. Don't go full silly on us.

 

[Petros2015]

You know how everything in London is "on camera" all the time ? (Famous worldwide exposure)

Who is more Faithful and True ? Who is at the highest peak of the highest mountain?

Who is at the bottom of the deepest ocean ?

Who can no one escape from, no matter where they go or run to hide ?

Who knows all things perfectly!

God does.

Are we counting Him as one of the eyewitnesses when we say the gospels are eyewitness accounts? Christians do, but this is an apologetic thread and obviously that won't be accepted as a fallback without faith.

 

[HitchSlap]

God does.

Are we counting Him as one of the eyewitnesses when we say the gospels are eyewitness accounts? Christians do, but this is an apologetic thread and obviously that won't be accepted as a fallback without faith.

According to this, there's not a single proposition that couldn't be accepted on faith alone.

 

[mindlight]

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

Magdalen papyrus - Wikipedia

Neither of these proposes a fragment anywhere near 30 years after Jesus except a controversial opinion on P64.

P64 or a late date for Johns gospel and P52

 

[HypnoToad]

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

There's "eyewitness account" and there's "written by an eyewitness", not necessarily the same thing. Someone can record eyewitness testimony without being an eyewitness themselves.

Anyway, we need to start with who wrote the Gospels.

The authors of the Gospels are NEVER NAMED in the texts themselves. Assigning apostolic authorship to the Gospels is PURELY based on church tradition.

This is not true. While tradition does play a significant part, it is certainly NOT the sole evidence. There is internal evidence in the Gospels that supports the authors being who they are commonly believed to be.

1. Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
2. Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
3. Luke: Introduction, Outline, and Argument
4. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline

Each of those articles begins with an authorship section explaining why we can accept the traditional view. Essentially, while it can't be "proven" who wrote them, there's no compelling reason to accept anyone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors.

Next, are they eyewitnesses?

Matthew and John, being disciples, were eyewitnesses. John even directly claims to be an eyewitness (chapter 1, verse 14 - Jesus lived "among US. WE SAW His glory"). As for Mark, it's commonly accepted that the young man who fled in Mark 14:51-52 was, in fact, Mark himself, making him an eyewitness to at least some of the Gospel events. Even if it that young man was not Mark, Mark was Peter's disciple, and his Gospel would certainly consist largely of Peter's first hand accounts. Luke, however, was a companion of Paul's, so he did not witness the Gospel events himself, but he does claim to be presenting eyewitness testimony (chapter 1, verse 2).