Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zenaphobe · 11-12-2009, 08:28 PM

Hello BC&H folks!

I was having a discussion on a blog about a claim that, "The (gospel) documents were written by eyewitness, or were the words of the eyewitnesses written down within the lifetime of those who had lived with Jesus."

I said it was a bold claim and proceeded to discuss it and another person made some statements which I don't feel I have the time and knowledge to address thoroughly, but I asked him if I could post them here for discussion and he agreed.

Here is the gist of his argument,

Quote:

. A reliable historical core can still be found. The two apparent errors (Mark's mistakes on customs and geography) you've cited bear no relevance to the existence of Jesus, because this is multiply attested - and attested by an earlier source. (Whether those apparent errors are actual or apparent is another issue)
The earliest written reference to the crucifixion (and thus existence) comes about 20 years after the event, but the creed can be reliably traced to within five years. Further, Matthew and Luke might have used Mark and Q for some material, but there is also non-Markian material in both, which means they are to some degree independent. Then there is the non-Christian references (yes, there is some dispute about Josephus, but most scholars agree he wrote something about Jesus, even if it was edited later) Many other ancient figures' historicity would not be questioned on far less attestation. It seems that because of Jesus' claims the goal posts have been unfairly moved.

and here,

Quote:

The two points you allege that Mark has erred (And I don't necessarily agree that he has.. but for argument's sake, let's assume he has) are not reason to cause us to doubt his attestation about Jesus' existence. The earliest reference to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (thus his existence) is from Paul in his first letter to the Church in Corinth, which is dated around 55 AD. There section in ch 15 I refer to specifically is almost certainly a kind of early creed which he probably first learned while in Jerusalem in the few years after his conversion in around 32AD (That's if we accept the date of 30AD for the crucifixion- which obviously assumes Jesus' existence!). So there's earlier attestation, and then there's the multiple attestation of other gospel and non-christian sources that Jesus at the very least existed and was crucified

I think he is going far beyond evidence here, but I don't know for sure and would appreciate some feedback from those of you who have plumbed these depths more thoroughly. I advised him I would post a link here after some responses were made.

Thanks!

Toto · 11-12-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

A reliable historical core can still be found. The two apparent errors (Mark's mistakes on customs and geography) you've cited bear no relevance to the existence of Jesus, because this is multiply attested - and attested by an earlier source. (Whether those apparent errors are actual or apparent is another issue)

There is no agreement on a reliable historical core for Jesus. It is claimed that scholars agree that he existed, but they can't seem to agree on who he was. See this thread

Quote:

The earliest written reference to the crucifixion (and thus existence) comes about 20 years after the event, but the creed can be reliably traced to within five years.

He must be referring to Paul's letters, which contain what is viewed as a Pre-Pauline hymn in Phil 2:6-11. This guy likes the term "reliable" but there is nothing reliable in the dating of Paul's letters, and the idea that the section goes back to the 30's is pure speculation, with no evidence behind it.

Quote:

Further, Matthew and Luke might have used Mark and Q for some material, but there is also non-Markian material in both, which means they are to some degree independent.

This is a device to create multiple attestation. Neither Matt nor Luke give any indication of a separate source for Jesus beyond what they read in Mark. Their differences involve different theological perspectives and different imagination. (e.g., Matt describes the dead in Jerusalem rising out of their tombs and walking around.)

Quote:

Then there is the non-Christian references (yes, there is some dispute about Josephus, but most scholars agree he wrote something about Jesus, even if it was edited later)

Once you have admitted that the passage in Josephus has been tampered with, you cannot be sure how it originally read. You don't know if it said something uncomplimentary about Jesus, or if it talked about a different man entirely. Josephus' works were preserved by Christians, and we cannot be sure how the originals read.

Quote:

Many other ancient figures' historicity would not be questioned on far less attestation. It seems that because of Jesus' claims the goal posts have been unfairly moved.

This is not true. The historicity of other figures has been questioned on similar levels of evidence. But historians find no real need to decide if historical figures such as King Arthur are really legends, or if there is some historical core to the stories about them.

Richard Carrier intends to publish a book on the historicity of Jesus from the perspective of a professional historian next year. I think that will clarify a lot of these points.

Zenaphobe · 11-13-2009, 05:22 AM

Hey Toto, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. I really wish the fellow making the claims would come and interact, but he declined.

I'll wait and see if any one has more to add and then I'll post a link there for him, or if I have your permission, I'll paste your reply there.

I will check out the thread you linked.

Thanks.

show_no_mercy · 11-13-2009, 06:55 AM

Well it should be brought up that none of the gospel authors were known by names until Irenaeus c. 180 CE. No one says something like "according to the gospel of John" when quoting a gospel before then.

Even if they were written by eyewitnesses, we don't know who these eyewitnesses are. And eyewitness testimony is remarkably malleable.

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well it should be brought up that none of the gospel authors were known by names until Irenaeus c. 180 CE. No one says something like "according to the gospel of John" when quoting a gospel before then.

Even if they were written by eyewitnesses, we don't know who these eyewitnesses are. And eyewitness testimony is remarkably malleable.

They will point to Papias and call it a day...

show_no_mercy · 11-13-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well it should be brought up that none of the gospel authors were known by names until Irenaeus c. 180 CE. No one says something like "according to the gospel of John" when quoting a gospel before then.

Even if they were written by eyewitnesses, we don't know who these eyewitnesses are. And eyewitness testimony is remarkably malleable.

They will point to Papias and call it a day...

Yeah, they could... but Papias specifically says that they (Mark and Matt) wrote down sayings and not a story or narrative. At the most, it could be claimed that what Papias was referring to was something akin to the gospel of Thomas.

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

They will point to Papias and call it a day...

Yeah, they could... but Papias specifically says that they (Mark and Matt) wrote down sayings and not a story or narrative. At the most, it could be claimed that what Papias was referring to was something akin to the gospel of Thomas.

And they will claim that Papias was mistaken, like he was about other things.

aa5874 · 11-13-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well it should be brought up that none of the gospel authors were known by names until Irenaeus c. 180 CE. No one says something like "according to the gospel of John" when quoting a gospel before then.

Even if they were written by eyewitnesses, we don't know who these eyewitnesses are. And eyewitness testimony is remarkably malleable.

They will point to Papias and call it a day...

But Papias was not an eyewitness of Jesus or his disciples, only supposedly knew some of the disciples friends, based on the Church writer using the name Eusebius.

Church History 3.39.2

Quote:

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

See http://www.newadvent.org

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Hello BC&H folks!

I was having a discussion on a blog about a claim that, "The (gospel) documents were written by eyewitness, or were the words of the eyewitnesses written down within the lifetime of those who had lived with Jesus."

I said it was a bold claim and proceeded to discuss it and another person made some statements which I don't feel I have the time and knowledge to address thoroughly, but I asked him if I could post them here for discussion and he agreed.

Here is the gist of his argument,

Quote:

. A reliable historical core can still be found. The two apparent errors (Mark's mistakes on customs and geography) you've cited bear no relevance to the existence of Jesus, because this is multiply attested - and attested by an earlier source. (Whether those apparent errors are actual or apparent is another issue)
The earliest written reference to the crucifixion (and thus existence) comes about 20 years after the event, but the creed can be reliably traced to within five years. Further, Matthew and Luke might have used Mark and Q for some material, but there is also non-Markian material in both, which means they are to some degree independent. Then there is the non-Christian references (yes, there is some dispute about Josephus, but most scholars agree he wrote something about Jesus, even if it was edited later) Many other ancient figures' historicity would not be questioned on far less attestation. It seems that because of Jesus' claims the goal posts have been unfairly moved.

and here,

Quote:

The two points you allege that Mark has erred (And I don't necessarily agree that he has.. but for argument's sake, let's assume he has) are not reason to cause us to doubt his attestation about Jesus' existence. The earliest reference to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (thus his existence) is from Paul in his first letter to the Church in Corinth, which is dated around 55 AD. There section in ch 15 I refer to specifically is almost certainly a kind of early creed which he probably first learned while in Jerusalem in the few years after his conversion in around 32AD (That's if we accept the date of 30AD for the crucifixion- which obviously assumes Jesus' existence!). So there's earlier attestation, and then there's the multiple attestation of other gospel and non-christian sources that Jesus at the very least existed and was crucified

I think he is going far beyond evidence here, but I don't know for sure and would appreciate some feedback from those of you who have plumbed these depths more thoroughly. I advised him I would post a link here after some responses were made.

Thanks!

It seems like he won the argument. I would only disagree that it is possible that the gospels could have been written by eyewitnesses (the gospel of Luke explicitly was not, all gospels were written in Greek, and literate people in general were rare). And it is somewhat irrelevant that three out of the four gospels were probably composed within the lifetimes of Jesus' listeners, since they seemingly went through plenty of iterations on their way to Greek-writing Christians. But everything in the quote blocks seems to be established facts. I suggest that you concede.

Zenaphobe · 11-13-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Hello BC&H folks!

I was having a discussion on a blog about a claim that, "The (gospel) documents were written by eyewitness, or were the words of the eyewitnesses written down within the lifetime of those who had lived with Jesus."

I said it was a bold claim and proceeded to discuss it and another person made some statements which I don't feel I have the time and knowledge to address thoroughly, but I asked him if I could post them here for discussion and he agreed.

Here is the gist of his argument,

and here,

I think he is going far beyond evidence here, but I don't know for sure and would appreciate some feedback from those of you who have plumbed these depths more thoroughly. I advised him I would post a link here after some responses were made.

Thanks!

It seems like he won the argument. I would only disagree that it is possible that the gospels could have been written by eyewitnesses (the gospel of Luke explicitly was not, all gospels were written in Greek, and literate people in general were rare). And it is somewhat irrelevant that three out of the four gospels were probably composed within the lifetimes of Jesus' listeners, since they seemingly went through plenty of iterations on their way to Greek-writing Christians. But everything in the quote blocks seems to be established facts. I suggest that you concede.

So, by historical core it is meant that a person named Jesus was crucified around 30 A.D.?

Is there anything else that could be added to this core?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2009, 05:22 AM	#3
Zenaphobe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: In the NC trailer park Posts: 6,631	Hey Toto, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. I really wish the fellow making the claims would come and interact, but he declined. I'll wait and see if any one has more to add and then I'll post a link there for him, or if I have your permission, I'll paste your reply there. I will check out the thread you linked. Thanks.

11-13-2009, 06:55 AM	#4
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Well it should be brought up that none of the gospel authors were known by names until Irenaeus c. 180 CE. No one says something like "according to the gospel of John" when quoting a gospel before then. Even if they were written by eyewitnesses, we don't know who these eyewitnesses are. And eyewitness testimony is remarkably malleable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.