Eyewitness accounts of the Gospels?

Question

http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/christ/...
The big argument here is that the Gospels were written when eyewitnesses could be reached or at least consulted to verify the accuracy. Since almost all serious biblical scholars (who are themselves Christians -- because who else would dedicate their lives to that), think that the first gospel, Mark, was not written until about 60 even 130 years after Christ died, why would he use that argument? Before you answer that I am wrong, look it up online.

shaun -- what is the point of that link? I don't see the relevance.

Answer 1

Mark spoke for Peter and wrote the oldest Gospel. Matthew was an apostle and so was John. Luke traveled with Paul but researched his book the way a modern writer would. He was possibly the most accurate in that he used the other gospels and interviewed people, notably Mary.

Answer 2

Well, we know today that eyewitness testimony is pretty much useless - people "see" what they want to and interpret it in differnet ways.

I wouldnt be surprised if the Gospel of Matthew had some eyewitness accounts, as it was supposedly written approx. 70AD, or 37years after the crucifixtion. So, you tell me - how accurate is your memory from 37 years ago? 20? 10? Hell, can you remember every detail from yesterday!!??

Lee Strobel is a jackass. He USED TO be a reporter, but now he is simply a spokesman for Christianity -= rather than doing real research, he uses Christian sources, then uses Christian propaganda for counter points...

I watched this ridiculous show last night called secrets of the bible. This scientist explained how there is a shrub in the middle east that produces an oil that is so volatile that the sun can ignite it. When it ignites, it burns quickly and leaves the shrub untouched.
The host of the show then said that this PROVES that Moses spoke withh God at the burning bush!!!! PROOF? It only proves that Moses saw a known species of shrub that ignited...that has nothing to do with God!!!!! I had to change the channel, as the BS got so thick I was choking on it....

Answer 3

You are incorrect; and I did look it up online, although only to confirm my previous recollections "Almost all serious biblical scholars" know the Gospel of Mark was written between 60 - 85 CE ("Common Era" -- the same as AD). This is confirmed by numerous independent resources. Irenaeus was the most notable source: he was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle Paul. In turn, Mark was a disciple of the Apostle Peter; many believe Mark was an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it wasn't from Lee Strobel.

Answer 4

Lee Strobel is an apologist, that's why. He was once a reporter, that's true, but his books are not researched the way a good reporter would research. He uses Christian sources exclusively. When he's investigating counter positions, he uses Christians sources to gather the information on those counter positions. How unbiased do you think that is!?

L.S: "Reverand Dr. James, what is the evidence that Jesus is a purely mythical figure?"

Rev. James: "Why, there isn't any!"

This guy makes O'Reily's no-spin zone look like it was standing still.


It's simply impossible that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or even people interviewing eyewitnesses. They contain geographic errors, anachronisms, respun pre-existing myths and legends, etc.

Answer 5

The big question, yet to be answered, is 'Are the first records we have of document X the first copies to have existed?'

There are bits of fragile papyrus that seem to be Mark from about 30 a.d., and some signs of other documents that suggest that our earliest copies are not the earliest versions. Few scholars put concrete dates to any of the Biblical books.



On a slightly different note- I am fascinated by the effects of time on a historical event. We already have conflicting stories about Elvis' life and death- and this started while he was still alive.

On the other hand, our ONLY records of some things (like Hannibel and his elephants, if I remember right) are single sources written hundreds of years later- but still accepted as factual.

Then we have the Bible. The Koran was written a lot longer than 130 years later (again, if I recall correctly- I am not at home in my library as I type this!), yet you rarely hear this sort of thing about it. The Bible is not a single-source book and most of it was written within a century of the event, yet there is a ton of controversy about it.

Answer 6

i can't communicate for different Christians, basically for myself. The "Gospels" are surely histories that middle around the training of Jesus Christ and the substantial events in his existence. they're biographical in nature, yet like a number of histories and biographies, they're written after the reality. They in all probability drew upon eye-witness money owed, possibly basically handed down orally, and prefer histories of as we communicate, are based upon those money owed. yet because of the fact the writers themselves... that's understood that Luke and others could have been eyewitness to multiple the events. John addresses himself interior the 0.33 individual in his account and yet, all of us be attentive to that it exchange into the final of the 4 to be written. as far as what the conventional Christian could have faith, understand that few are knowledgeable Bible pupils and various have never examine most of the Gospel money owed. the final public could attend one or 2 centers a year (Christmas and Easter), yet do no longer attend many times, and quite do no longer spend their time examining the Bible's contents. even with the undeniable fact that, that loss of interest does no longer forestall thought -- thought that the Bible contains eyewitness money owed of many events, as precarious a declare because it quite is. added: To me, an "eyewitness" account is a customary-individual account and written via the witness at or close to the time of the events being defined. John's Gospel contains many events for which there exchange into no eyewitness, different than Jesus. The beginning of Jesus, the enunciation (to Mary and Joseph) have been all extremely inner maximum concerns and as a result, the only way they could have been prevalent to the authors have been interior the path of the witness of those in attendance.

Answer 7

get the straight story: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm