Ted Hoffman

"The writer of the letters attributed to John remains unknown. No critical scholar that I am aware of thinks an original disciple wrote the letters.."

I have come across that hackneyed response too many times when people are asked why they doubt the gospels having been written by eyewitnesses.

I think its a form of argument from silence and lacks the necessary thrust when one wants to drive a truck through a theists belief system.

Are there any sites or ideas that can provide me with info to support disbelief that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

Historical info, circumstantial evidence (based on the dating of the gospels etc).

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

cloudyphiz

have you ever actually read a book by any of the 'critical scholars'?

well, of course you do. no need for a truck though, the sole act of actually reading the bible seems to have done it for most of us here.

-gary

Alexis Comnenus

Intensity, I'm intrigued. As you haven't, by your own admission, seen the evidence, how do you know the Gospels are not by eye witnesses? I fear you are not thinking freely if you ask for evidence to support a particular conclusion. A scientist trying to prove a particular viewpoint decided in advance would be grossly irresponcible, and I think a historian should be similarly judged.

Still, I have seen the evidence and you're guess is probably right. You should read Crossan's Historical Jesus and Birth of Christianity.

Regards

Alex

Skeptical

If the question is "how do we know Mark, Matthew, Luke and John didn't write their gospels/letters?", I would say that question can only be answered by examining the content of those documents. As far as I know, there is no smoking gun where an early church document explicitly claims, "well, we know that these documents were not written by eyewitnesses, but let's attach names to them to make it appear that they were". Therefore, we must rely on textual examination to evaluate the gospels.

A tremendous amount of scholarship has been devoted to recreating the background and circumstances under which the gospel stories were created. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that whoever wrote the NT documents, they were not writing about eyewitness accounts. For starters, you can look at the forum on this site under Theism-Christianity-biblical criticism.

Another nice website is <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com," target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com,</a> it has a lot of good info and links to other sites and works regarding critical scholarship.

For book length examinations, you can look at the work of John Dominic Crossan and "Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian Myth" by Burton Mack. Other sources are listed in their bibliographies.

Ted Hoffman

CloudyPhiz
No, I dont think so, unless you consider Josh McDowell a critical scholar. I dont know if Xstian apologetics fit in the lists of chritical scholars, considering the bias factor and the axes they aim at grinding.
The bulk of my knowledge is from the web and of course my formative years at the university.

I think "critical scholars" would vary on personal bias and value system of each individual. Some people consider Abdul Baha a critical scholar, I think Earl Doherty is others think Josh McDowell is and so on. Personally I dont give a shit whether someone is a critical sholar or not. What I value is the ideas they are advancing: How logical are they and whether they have support (eg on relevant sources etc).
The truck is figurative. Reading the bible alone provides us with a good tunnel vision and minimal room for manoevring. Its far from adequate for most of us here.
The bible was not written in a vaccum.
Alexis C
Ah, Alexis, I have read a lot of your posts, alongside Layman and Nomads. Interesting trio. OTOH I always find Toto, Lpetrich and other fellows whenever you three feature.
Finally we meet, or are we about to cross swords?

Beautiful question. I do not know whether the gospels are not by eyewitnesses - heck I wasnt there.
But I have no reason to believe they were written by eyewitnesses.
Look at the introductory letter of Luke, the way he says he investigated the "matters" carefully and so on. Eyewitnesses don't investigate. The tenses used in the gospels and so on and so forth, then of course there is Paul and Revelation, adaptation of Mark from Homeric epics, John fudging the story, Synoptic problem, dating of the gospels and so on.

So I am not approaching the issue with a carte blanche(thus culpable of bias), I have a background. I just need ammunition.
I think bias is irrelevant. We all have standpoints. What is important is how well we defend the views we hold. We are part of the game. We don't have to be referees. Of course if we adopt an untenable standpoint, we get blown out of it sooner or later.

So, what matters is support for our views.
Thats my position on the matter.
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

Bruce Wildish

To IntenSity,
Perhaps you should consult some of the many good books on the subject of the transmission and literary history of the gospels. And by good books I mean works of legitmate critical scholarship that represent what is taught in the field, and not apologetics published by Christian presses whose only purpose is to provide traditionalists with excuses not to listen to critical scholars (there is a good book by Helmut Koester, but I can't recall the title off hand). The arguments and evidence against the Gospels having been authored by eyewitnesses is extensive and very well-documented.

Peter Kirby

While Crossan is a good recommendation, I don't recall reading very much in Crossan specifically about whether or not the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Maybe Crossan has discussed this in one of his popular books, but in his scholarly tomes (including The Historical Jesus and The Birth of Christianity), Crossan seems to take this piece of scholarly wisdom for granted.

It is important to keep in mind that the church tradition says that only two of the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses: Matthew and John. Mark is supposed to have been written by a disciple of Peter, while Luke the physician is supposed to have been a companion of Paul. So half the work is done already.

For Matthew and John, you will find a few comments on earlychristianwritings.com that suggest they were not written by eyewitnesses. But I would recommend this two-part piece by Steven Carr:

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp2.htm</a>

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Thanks a lot to Peter Kirby, Bruce Wildish and Skeptical.
I found an article by steven Carr (relying on Larry A. Taylor) to be very useful..
Not to forget Helmut Koester.

Now if you will excuse me, I have a Theological professor waiting.

The battle will begin shortly and I am intent on coming out smoking.

Alexis Comnenus

Peter - if I remember, there is a great deal about texts in BofC while HJ gives lots on how traditions develop. Also they will both stretch the mind of someone new to the subject and either hook them or make them realise they should be doing something else.

Regards

Alex

PS: Koester's Early Christian Gospels is very good but rather scary. Not for beginners.

HelenM

Hi IntenSity

So, how'd it go today, with the Theology Professor?

love
Helen