rlogan

I cannot count the number of times that Christians claim "eyewitness" testimony on behalf of their superstition.

Usually the way I see this handled is by addressing the dating of the texts, the anonymity of the authorship, the preposterousness of the event (miracles), the lack of attributed authorship, etc.

But I am interested in something else, after a very long thread of ridiculous "prove the easter bunny doesn't exist" demands from a true believer.

I do not see where the Bible itself claims any specific eyewitness accounts of any event.

Eyewitness testimony is when the author actually states that he witnessed something. I don't mean where in the opening of the fable known as "John" he says, for example:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes..."

There are a couple of elementary disqualifications here. There isn't a "we" in an eyewitness. Allowing the plural in the first place is a shifty way to pretend that "someone among us" may have seen the event in question. But that is automatically hearsay at best.

Even then though, to qualify as hearsay the actual witness still needs to be identified, and that the witness testified directly to the author. Saying that person XYZ witnessed an event is just a story without the author specifically saying that the witness gave him the testimony.

The terrible vagueness and generality of the first line also disqualifies it for any specific event insomuch as "from the beginning" would mean a person of many thousands of years age to be an eyewitness in a literal sense.

So apart from what we already know as reasonable critical thinkers knowledgeable about the history of these fables, what specific events, if any, are there where we have specific "eyewitness" testimony according to the Bible itself?

Javaman

You appear to be most specifically arguing about eyewitness claims by the authors of the gospels and not the NT as a whole. You'll find very little argument that the writing down of the anonymous gospels by someone other than the actual people occured. Some more are suspect (James) but there are other parts ot the NT that are very much eyewitness accounts. That they documented real accounts is a different matter. We have many writings of Paul that are universally accepted as authentic, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, and the letters of the Hauptbriefe. Other 'Pauline' docs are probably not from Paul's hand.

SwoleMan

For some time now, I've wondered what scholars think of these verses from 2 Peter:

1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1:18
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Vivisector

The basic position, held by the dominant majority of scholars (dare I say, all but the most conservative?) is that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic. The author(s) is writing specifically to counter (among other things) the claim that they (this particular Christian community) *are* following cunningly devised fables and chose Peter as a means of securing authority for the epistle.

V.

Diogenes the Cynic

What was Paul an eyewitness of?

SwoleMan

Aha. Thank you!

Chili

Could it be that many of them were eyewitness and maybe just as many experienced the second coming of Christ in a very personal way?

If we consider how the Galatians were scolded for taking upon themselves the yoke of slavery a second time, it would follow that not all of them did, and maybe those of 2 Peter were those who did not do this, and did not do this for good reason.

To be clear, if the Galatians were wrong because they had faith in Jesus and still sought justification in the law it seems obvious that they had not found favor with God or they could have, and would have, abandoned the law in its entirety and just be a Christian. So maybe those in 2 Peter knew better and did just that.

Somewhere I believe that this concept is beyond Billy Grahamites who are forced to conclude that they are spurious imports from nowhere to get somewhere (pseudepigraphic).

Amaleq13

These are, as far as I can tell, the only such statements to be found in the Gospels:

"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;" - Luke 1:2

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." - John 21:24

I can only assume that this means you will be attending church services this Sunday.

Javaman

I was going to write, "the spirit of Yeshua," but that is told by "Luke" in Acts and, although Luke writes as if he is Paul's companion, I guess that's in some doubt. Luke wasn't with him on the road. So Paul's accounts in general are firsthand but his meeting the son of god on the road is not an eyewitness account. My apologies.

Chili

Unless Paul was another son of God himself and the living manifestation of Peter the first pope.