Tired of xtians prattling on about their "eye-witness" testimony?

[Minimalist]

Bart Ehrman, fr. Chapter 4 of Jesus Interrupted.

Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles.

Did two of the earthly followers of Jesus really have such radically different understandings of who he was? It is possible. Two people who served in the administration of George W. Bush may well have radically different views about him (although I doubt anyone would call him divine). This raises an important methodological point that I want to stress before discussing the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

Why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written by apostles and companions of the apostles? In part it was in order to assure readers that they were written by eyewitnesses and companions of eyewitnesses. An eyewitness could be trusted to relate the truth of what actually happened in Jesus' life. But the reality is that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted to give historically accurate accounts. They never could be trusted and can't be trusted still. If eyewitnesses always gave historically accurate accounts, we would have no need for law courts. If we needed to find out what actually happened when a crime was committed, we could just ask someone. Real-life legal cases require multiple eyewitnesses, because eyewitnesses' testimonies differ. If two eyewitnesses in a court of law were to differ as much as Matthew and John, imagine how hard it would be to reach a judgment.

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they"—Jesus and the disciples—were doing, never about what "we"—Jesus and the rest of us—were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

Who, then, wrote these books?

[Justtristo]

To be honest the more "informed" Christians will claim, "oh no they aren't eye witness testimonies as such, rather they are like contemporary biographies of famous people".

It is plain to anybody who has "sight" so to speak, that nearly all the gospels are either copied wholesale from the old testament or contemporary Hellenistic literature or they are strange interpretations of old testament verses taken out of their original context.

A good example I would give is the flight into Egypt story in the Gospel of Matthew, where Matthew has interpreted Hosea 11:1 which originally meant God's son was Israel not the Messiah to come. So I would recommend highly Robert M Price's book "The Christ Myth Hypothesis and it's Problems" which actually show and explain each verse of the Gospels which has been copied from some other source or another.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Who, then, wrote these books?

To be honest,I don't know or care. So far I've seen no credible evidence that the New Testament is anything more than the mythology of Christianity. Any similarities between the Jesus of the NT and some poor little rabbi (called perhaps Yeshua bar Yusuf) who got himself crucified,is purely coincidental.

[Minimalist]

Yes, Pad, but the whole point is to disabuse the fundies of the silly notion that their fucking gospels were written by people who were there.

[Kayenneh]

Who, then, wrote these books?

Well, unfortunately, someone did write those, but I agree with Pad that it doesn't matter much.
To me it seems, that after all translations and revisions of the gospels, the story can't be the same as it was when it was written. Over time, a lot of the story has been lost. To say that the gospels are historically accurate, is like saying that the movie Clueless is just like Jane Austen's Emma (though, I think Austen wasn't even the first to write that particular storyline) and that the modern version depicts how life was in the late 18th century. And for the inconsistency of the gospels; it's obvious that whoever decided to ink it down, had the same source of inspiration, but heard different accounts of the story. It's not the first time an urban legend is modified by the teller. So I agree with you too, Min. I don't see how anyone can think that the gospels are trustworthy..

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yes, Pad, but the whole point is to disabuse the fundies of the silly notion that their fucking gospels were written by people who were there.

Oh you think there's a POINT. How quaint.

[FallentoReason]

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they"—Jesus and the disciples—were doing, never about what "we"—Jesus and the rest of us—were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

Scripture speaks for itself here. I don't understand why my friends insist they were all witnesses..

[Creed of Heresy]

Yes, Pad, but the whole point is to disabuse the fundies of the silly notion that their fucking gospels were written by people who were there.

didn't you say in my thread on evolutionary theory that the fundies don't WANT to hear the truth?

Seems I'm not the only one operating under the impression that they want to listen to reason, eh? ;D

[Minimalist]

Yes. They do not want to hear it. But I blast away with both barrels mainly for my own enjoyment....not in the hope of educating those morons.

[Anomalocaris]

Who wrote the bible has no effect on the fact that what has been written in it is extraordinarily improbable and what has been produced to support them is essentially worthless for the purpose.