Were the gospel writers present during the time of Jesus?

[Daisy]

J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold Case Christianity, discusses the reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts

 

[Rich2018]

Interesting that this Christian says we can throw out the gospels if we can show that the people who wrote them weren't even alive at the time of the Crucifixion.


We know the gospels were written after the Crucifixion - possibly as much as 100 years later. So yes they writers could have been alive but more likely they were not.


We don't know who the writers of the gospels were. We don't know their names or where they lived or where they were from.
This guy says he wouldn't trust evidence from someone who was born after an event
Would he trust written evidence from an anonymous writer ?


The gospels contradict each other


The gospels are written in the third person. None starts any sentence with the word "I..."


We don't know if the contents of the gospels is their entire original content. They could have been edited.


Here's what Wiki has:

"The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels


If these estimates are correct, it's unlikely that any of the writers could have even been present at the time of the Crucifixion....and quite possibly not even been alive at that time. And as this former policemen says, we should "chuck them out".

 

[Omega Man]

Dubious at best.


OM

 

[JustHanging]

Highly unlikely. Ignoring the obvious, that Jesus may not have existed at all,....

...it seems to be generally accepted that Mark was written around 66-70 A.D., over three decades after the death of Christ. It is also generally accepted that the other gospels were written after Mark.

Dating the Gospels
Because the destruction of Jerusalem is never mentioned in Mark's gospel, it is usually thought to have been written just before that, around 68 C.E. Most scholars accept the likelihood that Mark wrote in Rome, and given that Paul traditionally was said to have died in Rome sometime between 63-68 under Nero, it seems likely that Mark knew Paul. His overall perspective seems similar to Paul's own message (in his negative presenatation of the apostles, his portrayal of the power within Jesus Christ, and his attitude toward the Law of Moses). Indeed, his work seems to be a narrative presentation of Paul's gospel in the life of Jesus, almost a post-mortem defense of Paul. If Peter was the one who established the Roman church (and there is no reason to think that he did not), Mark might have known him as well, perhaps having heard from Peter himself several of the stories of Jesus that he then included in his narrative. If so, it is notable that Peter comes off very badly in Mark's gospel.

 

[Somerville]

J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold Case Christianity, discusses the reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts

Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.

 

[Logicman]

Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.

Horse manure.

 

[Somerville]

Horse manure.

This is certainly a simple answer. Of course it is only supported if someone actually owns a horse.

The authors of the canonical Gospels were not eyewitnesses and probably, not certainly but probably, didn't even know any person who actually was an "eyewitness" during the years, Jesus is said to have been walking about.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.

Are there manuscripts from that time written in the language Jesus and his disciples spoke? No?

I think they were oral traditions, written down by people who were not eyewitnesses to any of the events in question.

 

[Somerville]

Are there manuscripts from that time written in the language Jesus and his disciples spoke? No?

I think they were oral traditions, written down by people who were not eyewitnesses to any of the events in question.

At this time, people do keep looking for old stuff, we only have fragments of various passages that are dated to the mid to late 2nd Century. The first complete text of any book is from the early 3rd Century, the first complete New Testament is in the Codex Sinaiticus, dated to 325-350 CE, although it does include several books that are today viewed as non-canonical.

We really don't know how or when the books of the New Testament were composed. From the multiple variations found in the texts written in the first five centuries of Christianity, we do know they were all 'edited' during that period.

 

[Daisy]

J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold-Case Christianity, spoke at the University of Kentucky Christian Student Fellowship in November 2014 about the reliability of the New Testament. In this portion of the talk, J. Warner examines the dating of the Gospels.

 

[Logicman]

This is certainly a simple answer. Of course it is only supported if someone actually owns a horse.

The authors of the canonical Gospels were not eyewitnesses and probably, not certainly but probably, didn't even know any person who actually was an "eyewitness" during the years, Jesus is said to have been walking about.

Well, you're wrong. I've shown you why in the past, as I suspect many others have also. Won't waste my time again.

 

[Logicman]

Are there manuscripts from that time written in the language Jesus and his disciples spoke? No?

I think they were oral traditions, written down by people who were not eyewitnesses to any of the events in question.

Somerville foists a strawman, saying "we only have fragments of various passages that are dated to the mid to late 2nd Century..." He completely ignores WHY scholars date the WRITINGS (vs. fragments) to the first century. Besides early church father attestations that verify the traditional authors, there are many other factors.

Example:

"Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)

The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former account' of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1). The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy."

Much more in the link:

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/the-dating-of-the-new-testament - by scholar Norman Geisler

 

[Somerville]

Well, you're wrong. I've shown you why in the past, as I suspect many others have also. Won't waste my time again.

Nope, you haven't shown anyone that what you believe is supported by modern academic works. Your long list of people supporting early dating of the New Testament is either 19th century academics or modern evangelicals.

There is debate outside of churches over the period of composition for the texts. They range from the late 1st century to the late 2nd century, which combined with the multiple interpolations and late additions tells those who bother to read outside of their enclosed world that the dating is unsure but certainly not early to mid 1st century.

Just one point: Why were the books written in the Greek language by people who appear to have a wide knowledge of the Old Testament books and wrote in a learned style?

 

[Logicman]

Nope, you haven't shown anyone that what you believe is supported by modern academic works. Your long list of people supporting early dating of the New Testament is either 19th century academics or modern evangelicals.

There is debate outside of churches over the period of composition for the texts. They range from the late 1st century to the late 2nd century, which combined with the multiple interpolations and late additions tells those who bother to read outside of their enclosed world that the dating is unsure but certainly not early to mid 1st century.

Just one point: Why were the books written in the Greek language by people who appear to have a wide knowledge of the Old Testament books and wrote in a learned style?

You just got gutted, Somerville.

 

[Somerville]

You just got gutted, Somerville.

Sorry, I seem to have missed the gutting. Could you show us again?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Somerville foists a strawman, saying "we only have fragments of various passages that are dated to the mid to late 2nd Century..." He completely ignores WHY scholars date the WRITINGS (vs. fragments) to the first century. Besides early church father attestations that verify the traditional authors, there are many other factors.

Example:

"Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)

The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former account' of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1). The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy."

Much more in the link:

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/the-dating-of-the-new-testament - by scholar Norman Geisler

Even if one grants that Luke and Acts originated circa 60-62, that is still 30 years AD and there is still the matter of translation from the language used by Jesus and his disciples. That means those stories were being passed from person to person for 3 decades before someone wrote them down - in another language.

"early church father attestations" are not something I would submit or accept as evidence. That's very biased testimony.

 

[Logicman]

Even if one grants that Luke and Acts originated circa 60-62, that is still 30 years AD and there is still the matter of translation from the language used by Jesus and his disciples. That means those stories were being passed from person to person for 3 decades before someone wrote them down - in another language.

"early church father attestations" are not something I would submit or accept as evidence. That's very biased testimony.

The truth is biased? Are you feeling ok, dox? LOL

 

[<alt>doxygen]

You just got gutted, Somerville.

Did you have a response for this question:

Just one point: Why were the books written in the Greek language by people who appear to have a wide knowledge of the Old Testament books and wrote in a learned style?

 

[Logicman]

Did you have a response for this question:

The knowledge of the apostles about the Old Testament was due to the teachings of Jesus over a 3 and 1/2 year ministry. Jesus took them to key Old Testament sites like Jericho, etc.

And Greek was a widely accepted language of the area during that time.

Dox, I have to tell you - that when you ascribe to the early church fathers "bias" - when you have no evidence to back that up, then you are ascribing to them that they are essentially corrupt liars and charlatans.

By the skeptic's common practice of discarding or attempting to marginalize ALL historical references to Jesus, they unwittingly would have people believe in a massive and complicated conspiracy by mostly common, uneducated fishermen, etc., to advance a false narrative about Christ. Let's review who would probably have to be in this unwitting conspiracy of theirs and be labeled as liars, charlatans, etc.

1. Most or all of the disciples, including early unbelievers such as James and Thomas. Skeptics would, in effect, be assigning acts of deception to these men in spite of there being no narrative or history of dishonesty on their part.

2. The women at the tomb. First-century testimony of any kind that a resurrection never occurred is absent in history.

3. Luke, the physician and author of his Gospel. He wasn't a disciple. He wrote that he carefully investigated "everything" from the beginning. There's no evidence he just focused on the words and accounts of the apostles alone. What's more, he continues his narrative with the Book of Acts, with additional miracles and people (including Paul, a person initially hostile to Christianity) claiming to have had experiences with Christ. Plus, Paul's companions on the road to Damascus "heard the sound" of Paul's experience with Jesus. So Luke would have to be a liar, fool, or charlatan also.

4. Eusebius and Josephus and others who wrote about Jesus have to be lying, mistaken, or also in on the conspiracy to defraud the populace.

5. We need to add Paul to the conspiracy, since he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus in his epistles, and since he wrote most of the New Testament. According to Luke, Paul had an experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

6. Let's also add in all the other eyewitnesses of miracles and/or authors of the New Testament, since they must also be liars, madmen, or charlatans.

And let's not forget all previous and modern-day conservative (and even various liberal) scholars who present to you the evidences they have learned and tested. To you, they are either liars, charlatans, or fools.

I can probably dredge up some more, but the list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., is now too long (and unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable.

Yeah, they are ALL fools, liars, etc., but you and Somerville and Ramoss, etc., are right. That reminds of Bill Clinton. The women were all liars but Clinton wasn't. Sure, dox.

 

[Cephus]

We don't even know who wrote the gospels, nowhere do any of the gospel writers identify themselves and the names attributed to them were added significantly later. This is church tradition, not history.

 

[Daisy]

There are four accounts of the life of Jesus in the Bible -- four Gospels. None of them gives us the name of their author, but traditionally they are called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But for the past couple of hundred years, skeptical scholars have rejected these names. They have said that these were probably added later to give credibility to documents whose authors were unknown. We do not know for sure who wrote the Gospels. There is a lot to be said in support of the traditional authors. But even if these names are not right, the Gospels are still based on reliable testimony. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus.With contributions from: Professor Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews; Professor Craig Blomberg, Denver Theological Seminary; Professor Darrell Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary

 

[Daisy]

Skeptical scholars used to believe that the Bible's accounts of Jesus were written hundreds of years after he lived, by people who didn't know anything about the historical Jesus. Professor Dan Wallace is one of the world's leading experts on the hand-written copies of the Bible's accounts. In this video he describes the discovery of the earliest copy of one of these accounts, the John Rylands Fragment of John's Gospel, known technically as P52. This discovery overturned the ideas of scholars, and showed that the accounts had been written much earlier than they thought. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus. With Professor Dan Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary

 

[RAMOSS]

Horse manure.

I am sure you can discuss the evidence for that directly, rather than point to lists of theologians who disagree. Let's see you do that, or by refusing, it would be strong indications you can not actually counter the claim of Somerville with what is known as objective evidence.

 

[Rich2018]

Bottom line: We have absolutely no idea who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were.


The last guy claimed that if they were falsified, then the early Christian church would have called at least one of the the Gospel of Peter is laughable.

The early church produced these books as evidence of their faith...the most likely explanation is that they are complete forgeries.


They do not read as a narrative but rather a sermon.


If they were real, if they were written by real people who lived at the time of the crucifixion, they would have be first person accounts and the authors would have identified themselves.


"I, Claudius" or something like that


The fact is we do not have a single eyewitness account of the life and times of Jesus.

 

[RAMOSS]

There is a little bit of misinformation about the Ryland fragment. First of all, the ryland fragment is dated based on the style of writing. That is a very inaccurate method of dating, since it is very subjective. The date range of that could be as late as the mid 3rd century,.. rather than the date range given. So, the claim that it overturned what many thought is highly inaccurate.