Freethought & Rationalism Archive

God's Will Hunting · 01-02-2005, 12:13 AM

It seems that authorship is still quite open to debate, but do most bible scholars accept the premise that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts? There are many here who make it sound as if this is common knowledge. When I mention this idea to xians I know, they are quite taken aback and doubtful of this claim.

Is this common knowledge on "both sides of the fence"? Any good sources for me?

Toto · 01-02-2005, 12:20 AM

Early Christian Writings

Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

Christians do not want to give up on the idea that there is eyewitness testimony in the gospels. The more sophisticated apologists claim that oral accounts of Jesus circulated for decades before being written down. This is highly speculative, to say the least.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-02-2005, 08:31 AM

I don't think it's common knowledge among for Christian laity. The traditions are still held to for the gospels and for the "Apostolic" letters. Even a lot of disinterested non-religious types seem a little surprised to find out that nothing in the NT was written by an eyewitness. This is the sort of info you have to find on your own. Christians certainly aren't going to hear it in church and we've all seen how glurge-y and uncritically the popular media treats these kinds of topics even on allegedly more "scientific" media like the Discovery or History Channels.

A lot of contemporary Biblical scholarship tends to be unknown or avoided in the US. It's been common knowledge for years among Israeli archaeologists that there was no Exodus or conquest of Canaan but the American populace is still largely unaware of it and neither their churches nor their news media has any desire to tell them about it.

Hell...we still think that the historicity of Noah's Ark is a serious topic of debate.

Vinnie · 01-02-2005, 08:38 AM

I've been trying to get someone to debate this over here for a while now. Gospels are NOT first hand accounts and THIS IS VERY COMMON KNOWLEDGE in scholarship today. Conservos are stuck living in the past clutching their long debunked mythologies.

Chris Weimer · 01-02-2005, 08:45 AM

Hopefully, Vinnie, hopefully, I'm trying to get you a debate partner!

dongiovanni1976x · 01-02-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Hell...we still think that the historicity of Noah's Ark is a serious topic of debate.

:rolling:

Chili · 01-02-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I've been trying to get someone to debate this over here for a while now. Gospels are NOT first hand accounts and THIS IS VERY COMMON KNOWLEDGE in scholarship today. Conservos are stuck living in the past clutching their long debunked mythologies.

It is very common knowledge in Catholicism to wait a hundred years or so before you can declare anybody a saint. This is done so all skeletons in the closet have a chance to die and the Gospels are no different in this respect. And why should they be?

Seraph · 01-02-2005, 09:30 AM

My question is why are only 6 of the 12 been included in the Bible?

Can someone provide me with a link or two that at least attempts to explain it?

Vivisector · 01-02-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seraph

My question is why are only 6 of the 12 been included in the Bible?

Six of 12 what?

God's Will Hunting · 01-02-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Gospels are NOT first hand accounts and THIS IS VERY COMMON KNOWLEDGE in scholarship today.

Do you know of any xian/scholarship sites or texts that demonstrate this?

01-02-2005, 12:13 AM	#1
God's Will Hunting Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: usa Posts: 93	Gospels first hand accounts? It seems that authorship is still quite open to debate, but do most bible scholars accept the premise that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts? There are many here who make it sound as if this is common knowledge. When I mention this idea to xians I know, they are quite taken aback and doubtful of this claim. Is this common knowledge on "both sides of the fence"? Any good sources for me?

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

01-02-2005, 12:20 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Early Christian Writings Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts Christians do not want to give up on the idea that there is eyewitness testimony in the gospels. The more sophisticated apologists claim that oral accounts of Jesus circulated for decades before being written down. This is highly speculative, to say the least.

01-02-2005, 08:31 AM	#3
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I don't think it's common knowledge among for Christian laity. The traditions are still held to for the gospels and for the "Apostolic" letters. Even a lot of disinterested non-religious types seem a little surprised to find out that nothing in the NT was written by an eyewitness. This is the sort of info you have to find on your own. Christians certainly aren't going to hear it in church and we've all seen how glurge-y and uncritically the popular media treats these kinds of topics even on allegedly more "scientific" media like the Discovery or History Channels. A lot of contemporary Biblical scholarship tends to be unknown or avoided in the US. It's been common knowledge for years among Israeli archaeologists that there was no Exodus or conquest of Canaan but the American populace is still largely unaware of it and neither their churches nor their news media has any desire to tell them about it. Hell...we still think that the historicity of Noah's Ark is a serious topic of debate.

01-02-2005, 08:38 AM	#4
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I've been trying to get someone to debate this over here for a while now. Gospels are NOT first hand accounts and THIS IS VERY COMMON KNOWLEDGE in scholarship today. Conservos are stuck living in the past clutching their long debunked mythologies.

01-02-2005, 08:45 AM	#5
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Hopefully, Vinnie, hopefully, I'm trying to get you a debate partner!

01-02-2005, 09:30 AM	#8
Seraph Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: USA Posts: 31	My question is why are only 6 of the 12 been included in the Bible? Can someone provide me with a link or two that at least attempts to explain it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.