The consensus of NT scholars is that neither eyewitnesses nor the associates of eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. This majority consensus includes the majority of Roman Catholic scholars who very much believe in the supernatural, miracles, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The only scholars who believe in the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels, with few exceptions, are evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants. That should give believers in the apostolic authorship of the Gospels serious pause.
Most scholars reject the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. Not only that, even many scholars who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus doubt or reject this claim. So I don't understand how you can believe that the evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is "good".
Believing in the resurrection of Jesus by faith is one thing, but claiming that there is good evidence for it seems to me to be an exaggeration in the extreme. First, one of the supposed and in some cases explicit purposes of writing these Gospels, according to Literalists and even the unknown gospel writers themselves e.
And yet, given that the gospels describe unlikely events and numerous miracles, the identity and credibility of the witnesses is therefore paramount in gauging their reliability.
Thus, remaining anonymous for the sake of humility undermines the very purpose for which the gospels were written! If their purpose was to help the world believe, then the the identity of the witnesses whose testimony they preserve definitely matters and, under such circumstances, insisting upon anonymity is the height of self-indulgence. Second, supposing that the authors of Mark and Luke were indeed motivated by modesty, this still does not explain why they don't at least identify their sources.
And Luke, were he indeed a companion of Paul who based on his epistles didn't seem to share the evangelists' concern for anonymity , could say the same thing about Paul without compromising Luke's own identity. And finally, Luke could have easily named the sources that he says he consulted to compile his complete account see again Luke 1: while still remaining anonymous himself. But, he doesn't. Another common Literalist defense is that the authors didn't identify themselves because the audience for which they were writing already knew their identity.
But, if true, then there was no reason to remain anonymous out of humility, was there? In other words, if Mark's contemporary audience knew him personally and knew that he authored the text, then humble anonymity was out of the question from the beginning. Furthermore, if true, the fact that Mark's contemporaries may have known him does nothing to help the modern day faithful, for we don't know him. If the first believers were expected to trust the authors of the Gospels primarily because they knew them personally—in other words, if the credibility of the testimony depended upon personal knowledge and trust of the testifiers—then why aren't today's Christians at least permitted to know with certainty who those testifiers were?
Why are we expected to believe miraculous stories--stories that challenge everything that we know from personal experience is possible--without even knowing who wrote them, when they were written, or whose testimony they offer? Even though Luke mentions eyewitnesses, his account is not an eyewitness one, but only an admitted hearsay account. And, how many layers of hearsay is impossible to determine as Luke never says he himself interviewed eyewitnesses, only that he intends to preserve a story that has been "handed down to us" by eyewitnesses , with the "us" possibly referencing his generation of Christians as a whole and not necessarily himself in particular.
In other words, Luke may have gotten his information not from supposed eyewitnesses themselves, but from other Christians who claim to have gotten their information from eyewitnesses. So, who wrote Luke? We don't know as the book doesn't tell us.
We don't know as we aren't told. What investigation did Luke perform in order to compile his account for Theophilus? Who did he interview? Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted them to to the best of his ability. Unlike with Mark, Papias provides no source at all for this knowledge, not even unnamed "elders". Like Mark and Luke, we can't say who wrote the gospel of Matthew, when it was written, where it was written, or whose testimony it purports to offer.
So, what about the fourth gospel, John? The author of John never says that he is himself the Beloved Disciple, or that he ever actually met or talked to the Beloved Disciple. To the contrary, "John" only writes about the Beloved Disciple in the third person e. Thus, like Mark, Luke and Matthew, we have no firm basis for attributing authorship of John to a disciple of Jesus' so named.
We don't know who wrote it, where it was written, when it was written, or whose testimony if purports to preserve. The simple truth is that there is no verifiable basis for the historical claim that the gospels preserve reliable, eyewitness testimony about the events of Jesus' life.
In fact, when viewed as evidence of the historical events described therein, they are incredibly weak sources--much weaker than one would expect from a "divinely inspired" biography of Christ. They were written anonymously at unknown times in unknown places. They don't identify the sources of their information. They present us with multiple levels of anonymous hearsay. They describe a highly unlikely series of events.
And as I shall explain in another post, they offer contradictory accounts of the events in questions. Most troubling, all of these problems of authenticity were clearly avoidable to someone with Jesus', or even his disciples', supposed capabilities. As noted previously, if Jesus had intended for his church to be built upon biographies of his life that preserved his teachings, he could have penned an authoritative one himself. He could even have done so in stone as the Pharaohs did so that it might be preserved indefinitely, and he could have written it in some self-authenticating, miraculous way, a way that would leave no doubt at to its authenticity.
Or, in the alternative, he could have formally commissioned his biography and appointed an authorized, official biographer, one whose account could have been verified and authenticated in customary ways of the time or in some miraculous way by Jesus himself and specific, named disciples who were known to have traveled with him.
Or, finally, he could have at least arranged for his life story to have been preserved by actual, known eyewitnesses, writing under their own names, and corroborating those accounts with testimony from even other witnesses and by inclusion in Roman and Jewish records of the time.
But, regrettably, none of this happened. It is troubling that Literalists insist that they are imminently reasonable in accepting the testimony of these unknown persons as God's infallible truth. They certainly would not accept the authenticity of other documents, especially religious ones, that are so weakly authenticated. For instance, consider the evidence supporting the authenticity of the gospels, which we just discussed, with that offered by the Book of Mormon, at text that most Literalists dismiss as illegitimate at best and Satanic at worst.
For instance, my copy of Book of Mormon given to me by missionaries who knocked on my door several years ago contains the following certification in its introduction redacted for brevity :.
I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of god to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.
He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account fo the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;.
Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.
Using the stones Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith tells us in his testimony that he then translated the plates into modern English, resulting in the revelation of the Book of Mormon, "another testament of Jesus Christ". But, we don't have to take just Joseph Smith's word for it, we also have preserved for us the testimony of several named witnesses as follows taken again from the Introduction to my Book of Mormon :. Be it know until all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, unto who this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken.
And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know it is by the grace of god the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.
And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear a record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto that commandment of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens.
And the honor be to the Father, and to the son, and to the Holy ghost, which is one God. Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.
And we give our names unto the world to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Peter Whitmer, Jun. Comparing now the testimony supporting the Book of Mormon to that of the New Testament, we can see that there is simply no comparison.
Joseph Smith's testimony is written in the first person and describes events taking place at specific dates and locations where he was personally present. The existence of the plates and of Smith's translation of them is attested to in writing by eleven different named eyewitnesses, all of which are known historical personages. Unlike with the New Testament Gospels, we don't have to wonder who compiled the Book of Mormon, where they did it, when they did it, or whose testimony is represents.
We know with certainty. Does this mean that the Book of Mormon is "true"? Of course not , as most any mainline Literalist will insist. Mosts Literalists reject Mormonism as an inauthentic work of fiction and are often highly critical of it, some going so far as to label it Satanic. To the extent that the documents are intended to be "historical accounts" at all, they are demonstrably hearsay. As such, they are the very opposite of "eyewitness accounts".
Besides the unreliability of hearsay in general, we have a great many many other reasons for doubting the historical reliability of the gospels, not the least of which is the conflicts and inconsistencies among them. I will write on this subject in another post.
Excellently argued. Long, though. Might get more of a response if you were to divide it up into smaller, more easily digestible chunks. But I know this is a small part of an even longer document, so that might be hard for you to do.
Regardless, really excellent info. Alas, you make many assertions without backing any of them up. Click To Tweet A straightforward reading of the Book of Acts reveals the apostles saw themselves as eyewitnesses. The early Church recognized this and formed the Canon around the historic, apostolic record related to Jesus.
While features of the Gospels may still be challenged by those who deny the eyewitness nature of the texts, the best inference from the evidence is the Gospels were intended to be eyewitness accounts. This book teaches readers ten principles of cold-case investigations and applies these strategies to investigate the claims of the gospel authors. Subscribe to J. Scroll to continue reading. Save Written By J. Warner Wallace J.
Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured cold-case homicide detective, popular national speaker and best-selling author. He continues to consult on cold-case investigations while serving as a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is also an Adj. Cold Case Christianity. Apologetics ForumApologetics Forum. Pingback: Is the Bible True? Pingback: mid-week apologetics booster — 1 Peter Your email address will not be published. How can we investigate the gospels to determine if they are valid and reliable?
Does early dating really matter?
0コメント