hatsoff

It is a little biased, true, but it is nevertheless the most concise primer I've read. Of course, that's excluding everything I haven't read, which fills volumes. Also, I would say it's a lot less biased from some of those anti-Christian works (Who Wrote The New Testament? comes to mind).

hatsoff

That's quite a bold assertion, and definitely not proven true. It is quite plausible, for instance, that Mark wrote the Gospel to which he has been ascribed. The same goes for Luke, Acts and 1 Peter, and, to a lesser degree, John, 1 John and Revelation. It is even possible, although highly unlikely, that such works as the Gospel of Matthew were originally written by the authors to which they have traditionally been ascribed.

It's really a judgment call. I would consider it unfair to say that the authors were "unknown." I think "disputed" or "doubted" may be more accurate terms.

This is another unproven assertion. While it is true that the earliest extant by-name citations took place in the second century, that doesn't mean the traditions themselves didn't originate earlier, in the late first century.

That's a bit misleading. Until enough evidence surfaces, we can't say for sure whether or not the second-century evangelists were correct in their assignments. However, the most likely individual candidates for authorship are usually the traditional authors.

Yes, mitigate--but you must weigh that against other evidence.

Again, that's not necessarily true. We assume the headings were added later, and rightfully so. However, it is no certainty.

hatsoff

There is some, but it is all weak. In fact, none of the extra-Biblical authors who mention Jesus were contemporaries, much less eyewitnesses.

That's probably because the implication of your question is that the Bible is not as reliable as Christians believe it to be. In fact, there is some historical value to the Bible, but when it crosses into the supernatural (IE, the resurrection) it slips into incredibility.

Diogenes the Cynic

Adrressing the points one by one:
1. Paul does not claim to have been a witness to the resurrection or to have ever met Jesus. 1 Corinthinans represents a claim to have received information by divine revelation from Jesus which is to say that it's no evidence at all.

2. Luke does not claim to have interviewed witnesses. He claims to have studied previously written material which he believe had been derived from testimony "handed down" by witnesses, but he does not come close to saying he interviewed any witnesses himself. We also know that he used secondary sources (Mark and Q) and shows no internal evidence of having had access to primary accounts.

3. The attestation of NT texts is irrelevant to the veracity of their historical claims. Just because something is copied a lot does not mean it must be true.

S.C.Carlson

:huh: Paul claimed to witness the resurrected Jesus in 1 Cor 15:8 ("and last of all he appeared to me too, as to a miscarriage.").

JustinFoldsFive

Diogenes, thanks for the clarification on 1 Corinthians and Luke. Unfortunately, I have been placed on "Moderator Review" at Worthy Boards, hehe. Whether or not the mods will even allow my response to be posted is out of my control.

Iasion

No he doesn't.

The actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."


Does Luke actually claim to have spoken to eye-witnesses?
No.

Does Luke actually identify any eye-witness?
No.

Does Luke directly connect his writings with the eye-witnesses?
No.


All that he says about eye-witnesses amounts to :
"Many have written a narrative about the events based on what the eye-witnesses handed down to us."

That's ALL he says about eye-witnesses.
In a nut-shell : "many have written ... based on eye-witnesses"

No connection is made between the eye-witnesses and Luke or his writings.

THEN
Luke describes his OWN VERSION :
"after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you"

NO mention of eye-witnesses here, merely the claim his version is ACCURATE and ORDERLY.

Iasion

Diogenes the Cynic

He claims (at best) to have had a visionary experience of Christ after the ascension which is not the same thing at all as claiming to have witnessed a physically resurrected Jesus as the literal, historical event described in the Gospels. Paul claims his experience was revelatory, not physical. He never met Jesus while he was alive and never claims to have "seen" him before his alleged ascension. I'm sure you would not try to argue that Paul's claims amounted to eyewitness testimony of a historical event or that his visionary experience is tantamount to empirical evidence that a resurrection actually occurred. People claim to have visions of Jesus even now. Does that make them witnesses to the resurrection?

In point of fact, Paul does not even really say that Jesus appeared physically to the apostles. He actually seems to deny that physical bodies can be resurrected.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's actually quite an ordinary and uncontroversial statement. Unless you can prove who the authors were then it's a simple statement of fact that their identies remain "unknown."
Not true, It is actually highly implausible for a great number of reasons. To give a couple of examples, Mark contains a number of significant errors in relationship to Palestian geography and Jewish law. A memoir obtained from a witness would not contain such errors. Mark's trial before the Sanhedrin, in particular, is riddled with procedural and legal errors including a conviction for something which was not illegal under Jewish law. Mark is also anti-Petrine and anti-apostolic in its rhetoric. Most damning in this regard is the fact that Mark's gospel ends without any appearances by Jesus to the apostles. Why would a Petrine memoir end with Peter running away and never witnessing the resurrection? Wouln't Peter's witness of the resurrection be the most important part?

There are other problems with the Markan tradition as well but i won't go into them. Suffice it to say that there is absolutely no good evidence in favor of the tradition (Papias just says that a secretary of Peter's wrote down his memoirs but he does NOT explicitly identify that book [if it existed at all] as Canonical Mark, nor give us any reason why we should) and plenty of evidence against it.
Again, this is not true and for reason just as compelling, if not more so, than Mark.
It's not possible at all for Matthew.
Not really/ It's a question of a complete lack of evidence FOR the traditions and a massive anount of circumstancial evidence against.
If you don't know who they were then they're unknown. There is absolutely no reason at all to give the authorship traditions any default assumption of authenticity and I'll repeat what I said above -- the burden of proof rests with those who would assign specific authorship. Until that burden is met, the authors remain unknown.
This is a weak protestation at best. We can trace the development of patristic tradition with reasonable confidence that they arose in the 2nd century, but even if, hypothetically, there were some earlier traditions it still doesn't change the fact that the traditions which exist now are based on the patristics, not on anything earlier. It also doesn't change the fact that we can tell the traditions are spurious from internal evidence.
1. "Evangelists" is a term commonly used to designate the authors of the Gospels, not the Church Fathers.
2. It's not misleading at all. That's how empirical method works. The authors are unknown until somebody can prove who they were. There is no burden on anyone to disprove a hypothetical author and the authorship traditions of the NT are entitled to no default assumption of truth.
3. We DO have enough evidence to determine that the traditions are spurious -- or at least, so implausible as to merit no serious consideration.
Really? Is Moses the most likely candidate to be the author of the Pentateuch? Is David the most likely candidate to be the author of Psalms? What is the source for your assertion that tradition equals likelihood?
It has been weighed against other evidence and the evidence in favor of the authorship traditions is poor to non-existent.
It is a certainty that nothing in the texts themselves contain any claims to eyewitness testimony and speculating that they may have hypothetically identified themselves in their titles is (in my humble opinion) grasping at straws. We certainly have no reason to believe that was the case and it's highly implausible on its face.

hatsoff

Yes, your statement is technically true, but it carries some unfounded implications--namely, that the traditional ascriptions are incorrect. And that is definitely a controversial assertion.

Rather than respond to each of these points, which would take more time than I have at the present moment, I will just remind you that scholarship is deeply divided on these issues. My point is not that Mark did or did not write GMark, for instance, but that we should take into account all sides of the issues--not just those which seem most appealing.