How Could Anyone Believe the Gospels Are Eywitness Accounts?

[Jenny A]

Yes, I do understand that not all Christians believe that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. But some Christians on this form claim they are with some frequency. It is to those Christians that I address these points:

1. None of the Gospel writers claims to be an eyewitness. Just like modern writers, ancient writers generally tell you that they have seen a thing with their own eyes, because it adds verisimilitude. The writers of the Gospels don't do this.

2. The Gospels are all written in the third person. Compare that to Paul, who does speak in the first person about his vision of Jesus.

3. None of the authors of the Gospels identifies himself by name. Yes I know that names were attached later, but the authors didn't identify themselves.

4. The author of Luke specifically says he is not an eyewitness but rather:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

Luke 1 NRSV

So Luke says what he's writing is hearsay passed down from eyewitnesses. But his hearsay is more "orderly."

5. The Gospels are written in Greek, but the disciples, Jesus, and the other witnesses spoke Aramaic and were most likely illiterate. So the Gospels could not have been written by the participants in the stories.

6. The language used in the Gospels suggests a story about a long ago time, not an account gained from questioning eyewitness:
"In those days John the Baptist appearing.. . " Mathew 3:1
"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee. . ." Mark 9:1
"Now during those days. . . " Luke 6:12

7. Not one of the Gospels could possibly have been written by a single eye witness as there is no one person who was present at all the events described therein. And some of the events described, such as the temptation of Jesus, happened to Jesus alone and therefore could not have been witnessed by anyone else.

8. John calls people Jews as if he himself were not a Jew and Jesus and the disciples were not Jews:

"Now a discussion about purification arose between John's disciples and a Jew." John 3:25 "Now there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." John 5:1 "After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him." John 7:1-2

John also repeatedly refers to Jewish festivals without identifying the Hebrew holiday. Not what you'd expect of someone who was a Jew and there at the time.


Nor do the Gospels give any indication that they were written by persons who went around talking to eyewitnesses. Again, I refer you to Luke picking among the accounts that "were handed on to us." And given the difficulties of travel, how much later they were written then the events described in them, and the language barrier, it would have been an unprecedented effort, had they been written that way, and surely they would have, having performed this amazing feat of reporting bragged about it a little.

So my question is, what in the world makes you think they are eyewitness accounts as opposed to stories handed down and assembled into books much later? Because everything about them suggests otherwise?

[Minimalist]

They are stupid.

[Nope]

Pliny was an eyewitness to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius

Here is his account. It is very different from the style of the gospels and sounds more like how we would expect a first person account of an event to read.

"My uncle was stationed at Misenum, in active command of the fleet. On 24 August, in the early afternoon, my mother drew his attention to a cloud of unusual size and appearance. He had been out in the sun, had taken a cold bath, and lunched while lying down, and was then working at his books. He called for his shoes and climbed up to a place which would give him the best view of the phenomenon. It was not clear at that distance from which mountain the cloud was rising (it was afterwards known to be Vesuvius); its general appearance can best be expressed as being like an umbrella pine, for it rose to a great height on a sort of trunk and then split off into branches, I imagine because it was thrust upwards by the first blast and then left unsupported as the pressure subsided, or else it was borne down by its own weight so that it spread out and gradually dispersed. In places it looked white, elsewhere blotched and dirty, according to the amount of soil and ashes it carried with it.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

[abaris]

Pliny was an eyewitness to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius

Yeah, it is accepted by science that Pliny gave the first accurate account of an eruption. Even by todays standards his observations are considered as valid. That speaks for him really being an eye witness, although a remote one, since as far as I remember, he witnessed the events from his mother's villa at Misenum.

His uncle, Pliny the elder, died when trying to rescue survivors with his fleet.

[Nope]

Pliny was an eyewitness to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius

Yeah, it is accepted by science that Pliny gave the first accurate account of an eruption. Even by todays standards his observations are considered as valid. That speaks for him really being an eye witness, although a remote one, since as far as I remember, he witnessed the events from his mother's villa at Misenum.

His uncle, Pliny the elder, died when trying to rescue survivors with his fleet.

You would think that the Gospel writings would seem more personal but they don't. They have a remoteness to them that Pliny's account does not. Perhaps the word, personal is wrong but I don't know how else to describe what I mean. Many Christians believe the gospels were written by people who actually witnessed the torture and death of someone that they not felt was the best human who ever existed. Their writing seems distant somehow compared to Pliny's. It isn't what you would expect from people who supposedly knew Jesus so intimately.

This is how Pliny described his mother and his escape in a letter. Why isn't there some letter about Jesus written by someone remembering him in such a deeply personal way? The gospels don't sound like a first person account.

Ashes were already falling, not as yet very thickly. I looked round: a dense black cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a flood.'Let us leave the road while we can still see,'I said,'or we shall be knocked down and trampled underfoot in the dark by the crowd behind.'We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not the dark of a moonless or cloudy night, but as if the lamp had been put out in a closed room.

You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.

There were people, too, who added to the real perils by inventing fictitious dangers: some reported that part of Misenum had collapsed or another part was on fire, and though their tales were false they found others to believe them. A gleam of light returned, but we took this to be a warning of the approaching flames rather than daylight. However, the flames remained some distance off; then darkness came on once more and ashes began to fall again, this time in heavy showers. We rose from time to time and shook them off, otherwise we should have been buried and crushed beneath their weight. I could boast that not a groan or cry of fear escaped me in these perils, but I admit that I derived some poor consolation in my mortal lot from the belief that the whole world was dying with me and I with it."

[IATIA]

I would think that literacy and the availability of writing implements would be in the hands of the more well to do. It was not like one could just run to Walmart and grab a pen and paper.

[Esquilax]

So my question is, what in the world makes you think they are eyewitness accounts as opposed to stories handed down and assembled into books much later? Because everything about them suggests otherwise?

It's a convenient position to hold in order to give the conclusion they've already come to more authority?

That, or lack of interest; "The book sez it's the gospel of Matthew, therefore it must have been written by Matthew!"

[Nope]

I would think that literacy and the availability of writing implements would be in the hands of the more well to do. It was not like one could just run to Walmart and grab a pen and paper.

Well, maybe they should have gotten out their phones and taken a few selfies with Jesus.

Good point, though. The fisherman who hung out with Jesus-if he even existed-were probably illiterate so they couldn't write out their first hand accounts. The Christians who insist that Mark wrote his the book with his name are very gullible.

[abaris]

....

Ashes were already falling, not as yet very thickly. I looked round: a dense black cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a flood.'Let us leave the road while we can still see,'I said,'or we shall be knocked down and trampled underfoot in the dark by the crowd behind.'We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not the dark of a moonless or cloudy night, but as if the lamp had been put out in a closed room.

And that's considered the first accurate description of a pyroclastic wave. That's why his account is to be considered accurate, since noone at that time had any knowledge of this phenomenon. Which is hardly surprising, given that there hadn't been major eruptions in the Roman empire until the year 79. Today we know that a series of pyroclastic waves was responsible for most of the destructions in Pompei and Herculaneum.

[Faith No More]

I'd say it's highly likely that for many of them their preacher tells them they're eyewitnesses, and they never really look for themselves.