Were the Gospels eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus?
May 16, 2007
Inspired by Nightline’s recent Christian-Atheist debate, we’ve been discussing the historicity of Jesus, the central figure of Christianity. To further the discussion, I would like to post a comment by Michael Turton from a previous blog:
Any good introductory text will tell you that not only were the gospels not written by eyewitnesses, but they contain much that is fiction, and separating the cream from the dross is a difficult and demanding task.
A good place to start is with Udo Schnelle’s The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Schelle, a conservative Christian and scholar of the first rank, notes that none of the Gospel writers could have been followers of Jesus (see his discussion of the authorship of the Gospel writers in each of the chapters on the particularly texts).
Bart Ehrman sums the situation up in his widely-used intro work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings: “…They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.”
Luke himself clearly states that he was no follower of Jesus. Nor could Matthew have been a follower of Jesus, for he depends almost entirely on Mark for the skeleton of his story. And Mark could not have been a follower of Jesus because the narrative portions of his story are made up almost entirely out of the Old Testament, while the sayings appear to be common to the Hellenistic milieu.
For example, read Mark 11:1-11, then go back to 1 Sam 9 and 1 Sam 10, and you’ll see how Mark parallels the story. Similarly, Mark created the story of the arrest in Gethsemane from 2 Sam 15-17,20. Much of the narrative of Mark is taken from 1 and 2 Kings, while Jesus trial and crucifixion and empty tomb appear to be based on Daniel 6. Ted Weeden, the ranking Mark scholar, has also identified Josephus as a source for Mark, showing that Jesus appears to be sourced from Jesus Ben Ananus, who appears in Wars, Book 6.
In other words, Mark’s work is fiction, and Matt and Luke are based on fiction. If Mark had any eyewitness accounts, he chose either to overwrite them, or ignore them in constructing his story.
For further study on the gospels, a good place to start is Peter Kirby’s www.earlychristianwritings.com. Another good site is Mark Goodacre’s NT Gateway.
I do not know off hand of any atheist historian or NT scholar who accepts the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, and there are several scholars who appear to believe that Jesus was not a historical figure (Earl Doherty, G Wells, Burton Mack).
- Michael Turton
Be sure to check out Michael’s Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.
- Roopster
Entry Filed under: Roopster. Tags: agnostic, apologetics, atheism, Bible, christianity, faith, freethinking, Jesus, religion, skepticism, spirituality.
24 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Forums (New)
Top Posts
SU Users: StumbleUpon It!!
1.
weliftthemup | May 16, 2007 at 12:05 am
OR the Catholic belief of Topography is true and the Old Testament predicts the New and the New Fullfills the Old, and the truly inspired writings mesh because God is as all knowing as we believe. I trust that it would have been almost impossible for the Gospel writers to ‘make up’ a story as grand as the 4 gospels to fullfill the Old Testament so well. We are talking about 2000 years ago, it was not as easy to ‘google’ in those days to create a work of fiction such as the ones you mention above. Peace be with you.
2.
Justin | May 16, 2007 at 12:13 am
I like your big quotation marks! haha
3.
LaShawn | May 16, 2007 at 1:47 am
That made me chuckle!
4.
Mike C | May 16, 2007 at 1:48 am
Well then let me introduce you to one. N.T. Wright is a pre-eminent historian and New Testament scholar who doesn’t fit easily into either conservative or liberal academic camps when it comes to historical Jesus studies - and yet he has argued well against many of the speculative theories you mention above.
You can find many of his articles online here.
5.
HeIsSailing | May 16, 2007 at 7:19 am
weliftthemup sez:
“We are talking about 2000 years ago, it was not as easy to ‘google’ in those days to create a work of fiction such as the ones you mention above. ”
That’s true, but the ancients were no dummies either. Many of the scenes in Mark, especially the miracle stories, have Greek passages that are verbatim from the Septuagint passages concerning Elijah and Elisha. If this were today’s world, that would be called plagiarism. But copyright laws did not exist in the ancient world, and this sort of lifting and borrowing was quite common in the ancient world.
If the Gospel writers were based on eyewitness accounts, then ask yourself who was the eyewitness to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemene when Jesus was praying while his disciples (eyewitnesses) snoozed away?
*************************
MIke C, thanks for the link. I have heard of NT Wright, but am not familiar with his research. I look forward to checking him out.
6.
Brendan | May 16, 2007 at 7:32 am
An even more fundamental question than whether they were eyewitness accounts is whether there was anything to literally eyewitness. If the story began as metaphorical fiction to begin with, then it’s silly to take the jump to consider who was and was not an eyewitness.
7.
Michael Turton | May 16, 2007 at 7:33 am
I trust that it would have been almost impossible for the Gospel writers to ‘make up’ a story as grand as the 4 gospels to fullfill the Old Testament so well.
On the contrary, the Gospel writers clearly made up stories from the OT. Matthew’s well known error based on Zech 9:9 is a good example. In Mark Jesus correctly rides one animal into Jerusalem. But Matthew misread the original OT:
Zech 9:9 states:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
….To think that the writer meant two animals. So Matthew wrote
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
Similarly, the Gethsemane Scene is based partly on the scene where Elijah was fleeing Jezebel. But Mark omitted the angel when he crafted the account; Luke, knowing the source, put it back in.
The authors also frequently tell their readers where they derived their tales.
In addition to the OT, two other sources lie behind the Gospels. One are Greek and Roman religious traditions, the other, Hellenistic historical fictions. In the latter, empty tombs, deaths, resurrections, travel narratives, miraculous escapes, and so forth, are commonplaces. All of the events of the Gospels can be sourced in either the conventions of Greek fiction or the Old Testament. A good source for the Greek fictions is Hock’s edited volume on Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative, but I also recommended Stephens and Winkler’s collection of the Greek novels.
Well then let me introduce you to one. N.T. Wright is a pre-eminent historian and New Testament scholar who doesn’t fit easily into either conservative or liberal academic camps when it comes to historical Jesus studies - and yet he has argued well against many of the speculative theories you mention above.
You must be joking. NT Wright is a well known religious conservative who believes the gospels are eyewitness accounts and Jesus was actually resurrected. He fits easily into the conservative camp; he’s one its biggest champions! As for my claims being “speculative” I suggest you pick up any mainstream NT text, not a far-right conservative like NT Wright, whose works are methodologically impoverished. In the extreme.
8.
Jeff | May 16, 2007 at 9:52 am
NT Wright is a controversial figure in the field of apologetics and there’s a reason why. He’s a nutball. A Xian I was debating told me to listen to a 90-minute podcast by him which I did. He made gobs of assumptions based on no evidence or logic, he outright lied numerous times, and horribly misrepresented so many things I couldn’t count them all. But that was only when he made sense. Most of the time he rambled on and on with no point. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever listened to. NT Wright is as good as a source on the Bible as listening to a rock is.
9.
weliftthemup | May 16, 2007 at 12:05 pm
The assumptions of Faith are that the Gospels are written as inspired writtings about the life of Christ from about the time of his ministry. We as Christians choose to belive that the inspired writings are truly inspired. Athiest assume that God does not exist, so there could be no inspiration given to the writers from a higher source. I see stricking resemblence in the writings from both the OT and the NT and have the faith that it is indeed inspired and divine. I have no doubt at all that the reason Christianity has survived for nearly 2000 years is because of the divinity of God. There have been many excellent work of fictions in the history of man, none of which inspired followings as did the death and resurection of Christ. Why? Because they were fiction. It accures to me that athiest must assume that Christians are ignorant people to have fallen under the ’spell’ of a book that took nearly 2000 years to write. I assure you that you are incorrect in this assumption. The study of sacred scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit leads to true understanding. The study of sacred scripture with the guidance of Satin leads to the beliefs of athiest. I am sure that line will raise a few eyebrows as it were, but remember that from the Christian point of view, which is the only point of view I care to have, there is only two truths, good and evil. Christ or satin. Peace be with you.
10.
Pedro Timóteo | May 16, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Satin sounds nice…
11.
Kim | May 16, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Weliftthemup sez:
“There have been many excellent work of fictions in the history of man, none of which inspired followings as did the death and resurection of Christ. Why? Because they were fiction”
Oh Really? What about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Zorastorism? Are not also the followers of these religions inspired by their respective holy books in huge numbers? The followers of these religions far outnumber Christianity currently as well as in the past. It is the height of Christian arrogance to think that because their holy book inspired millions of people that it must be true. Since it is possible for billions of people to be inspired by works of fiction, it equally possible that Christians also belive a work of fiction.
Weliftthemup sez:
“but remember that from the Christian point of view, which is the only point of view I care to have, there is only two truths, good and evil. Christ or satin.”
Why are you even here then? It is obvious you have your head in the sand as you will even consider anything anyone says here.
12.
Hearty Heretic | May 16, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Thomas Jefferson said that it was relatively easy to abstract “what is really his [Jesus'] from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.” Stephen Mitchell does an excellent job of detailing the process in the introduction to his “Gospel According to Jesus.”
13.
Karen | May 16, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Satin sounds nice…
Hee, hee! The religion of Satin, where we all worship luxurious bedsheets and underclothes at the Secret Church of Victoria.
14.
Justin | May 16, 2007 at 6:01 pm
As a Christian, this response is disappointing at the end of weliftthemup’s post.
on a side note, the fact that the gospels aren’t eyewitnesses aren’t troubling. It is apparent that there is something more than the men who penned these books.
The Bible was written in three different continents over a span of 1500 years and in three different languages, yet it remains consistent in its ambiguities, paradoxes and ironies. It may have been penned by over forty men, but it is evident to me that it was designed and directed by one author, by one mind. To create such a book, with no higher direction to maintain these common threads and produce the effect, would be the equivalent of creating the stereogram by accident. Yeah, not possible.
Anyway, I have to go roll my windows up, it’s starting to rain! YIKES!
15.
Heather | May 16, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Justin,
**As a Christian, this response is disappointing at the end of weliftthemup’s post.** Thank you for saying that. I’m glad that your viewpoint isn’t ‘black and white.’ (In some areas, I’m sure it is, as it is for everyone. But at least you’re not putting all of humanity in black or white categories).
16.
societyvs | May 16, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Many of the scenes in Mark, especially the miracle stories, have Greek passages that are verbatim from the Septuagint passages concerning Elijah and Elisha” (HIS)
I would ask something quite simple - how easy was it to get a copy of that Septuagint to copy from? And when was this done?
“And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.” (Micheal)
Can’t this as easily be attributed to scribal mistake - to borrow from Ehrman an idea. Possibly the (and ‘ ‘kai’
was added in by a scribe - then the tenses to make it look right? Its funny cause there is 2 horses there - and yet Jesus only goes on one (unless he had a leg on both of them). I also just re-read Zech 9:9 (it could be that both were asked for?) “and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” MIs-reading or not - that’s a tricky one.
I guess I have little problem with believing the stories were written with some literary techniques but relating a story that happened.
17.
HeIsSailing | May 17, 2007 at 6:02 am
“I would ask something quite simple - how easy was it to get a copy of that Septuagint to copy from? And when was this done? ”
Hi Society. I had an early commentator on my site who claimed the same thing and had a link to an artcle he wrote on this topic. It compared the stories of Jesus and Elijah healing a blind girl (I think it was that miracle if memory serves) - and he had photo copied the Greek passages of both stories into his article to show that there were portions that were in fact identical.
I wanted to site that article here, but wouldn’t you know it, that article is now gone and the link is dead.
Sheeesh, now I feel like the guy who saw Bigfoot, but the film in my camera was overexposed, and the rain washed the tracks away. “But I saw him! I really did!”
18.
Brendan | May 17, 2007 at 7:59 am
HIS:I wanted to site that article here, but wouldn’t you know it, that article is now gone and the link is dead.
You can find several such examples here:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm
19.
societyvs | May 17, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I figure even if the disciples did that (or as some would say - later people did that) it only proves the people matched Jesus to various people of the Tanakh. Some words are similar - again this is greek comapred with greek - I am guessing they would have to be (being the same language and all). But this happens so often in any language that it proves coincidence more than fact (for the theory).
Even if it was ‘paraphrasing’ from older texts (which I have some doubts about since I am not sure how readily avaialble the Septuagint was in Christian circles - there seems to be little proof for this idea). In english if I am re-itterating a story about a certian person like King Jr. for example - it is more than likely a few of my sentences will match up with another’s. That being said, maybe the writer’s (or later writers) are doing what we now call ‘quoting’ for comparison reasons.
For me the most plausible thing is the disciples wrote and knew the stories from the synangogue - and likely remebered them (having no copies readily available in their home). Then when they wrote about Jesus (or maybe even Jesus himself made these comparisons) they wrote of the Tanakh characters and Jesus - and it’s no wonder some texts match up so excellently (both being greek versions of the passage). MInd you from the examples in that link - only some words match up - not whole stringing patterns.
As for the stories matching up with Elisha and Elijah and other facets of the Tanakh - does it mean Jesus never did what he is claimed of doing? The stories are similar but they are slightly different also - even people of Jesus’ day (according to the gospels) compare him with Elijah and ‘the prophet’ (ie: Moses). One might not have to wonder why if these examples happened and were seen. Which seems to be half the point the disciples are making with the writings. I am not saying the similarities aren’t there - I think they are - but they also have Jesus as someone in the newer version as a point - that maybe a Jewish viewer might more readily understand than us. (possibly proving jewish writers and not greeks - except for Luke).
20.
GW staff | May 17, 2007 at 11:51 pm
There appears to be much evidence that the gospels were written by the suggested authors. Having looked through references for 35 years and doing my own collating of time scales, personages and historical proofs…..I really do not have the time or the patience or the inclination to begin doubting Gods word at this stage.
At every turn of the page, some naysayer will postulate a theory, throw it into the ring and watch doubt and insecurity spread like wild fire.
The Bible IS his word…and Im sure what he wanted told is in there. The more study I do, the more ratification of the scriptures I find.
That said, have a pleasant evening..
G
21.
Mike C | May 22, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Interesting… you claim not to know of any NT scholars who believe in the historicity of the gospels, and yet when I mention one, you say that he is not credible precisely because he believes in the historicity of the gospels. Seems rather circular to me.
Your only argument against him seems to be that he is “conservative” (3 times in one paragraph?!) and yet I don’t see how slapping a label on someone says anything about whether or not their scholarship is valid or their views are correct. I could just as easily label (and thereby dismiss?) your views as “liberal” - but I don’t see what that has to do with the actual arguments or issues at hand.
22.
The Myth of God’s U&hellip | December 25, 2007 at 12:54 pm
[...] as to whether this event actually ever took place, we cannot deny the impact this story, related a few decades later in the gospels, has had on the world. This “good news” did not bring the promised peace on earth but [...]
23.
anarchy | March 24, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“as to whether this event actually ever took place, we cannot deny the impact this story, related a few decades later in the gospels, has had on the world. This “good news” did not bring the promised peace on earth but”
I think that if you say that the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus’ precepts that he preached is the cause for the holy wars and deaths of many people is similar to the ill someone does if they were to say technology is responsible for the deaths of armies and innocent people because of advancements like machine guns, high level explosives, and such - its just the wrong way of putting it. Specifically Christ said that no man should resist an evil person.
It’s the interpretation it goes through when taken into military and politics - Christianity is a not a call to raise up violently and, sadly, whether youre an atheist or a believer, im sure we all do agree it has had an extreme cost on all of humanity.
24.
Mirjam | May 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Mike C,
He said he didn’t know of any atheist historian or NT scholar. The adjective “atheist”, of course, refers to both historian & NT scholar. There’s nothing circular about it, because the author you mentioned is definitely not an atheist.