Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. 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 were written on what it´s called formally anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
What is your thoughts on it? Did eyewitnesses write the Gospels? If so, what´s your best evidence on it?
From what I’ve read, I think you’re correct that scholarly consensus holds that none of the four gospels was written by eyewitnesses.
To me, a more interesting question is whether any of the gospels incorporate eyewitness reports. I’m currently partway through Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2/E, 2017), in which he argues the gospel writers did have access to such eyewitness reports. I have yet to read Ehrman’s book Jesus Before the Gospels, which argues to the contrary. I very much enjoyed the debates/discussions these authors had: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Perhaps I’m naive, but my natural inclination is to accept the New Testament writers at their word, unless proven otherwise, and assume they are doing their best to tell the truth. So, for example, I tend to believe the author of Luke when he says in his prologue that he has conducted thorough investigations. But then, having said that, he immediately gives us an infancy narrative that can’t possibly be true in its every detail: firstly, it hopelessly contradicts Matthew’s narrative; secondly, there was never any empire-wide census by Augustus; thirdly, no Roman census would require everyone to return to the hometowns of their far-far-distant ancestors; etc., etc.
It’s all very confusing and sometimes makes me want to give up trying to figure out “what really happened.”
Coimbra1982 said
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek. 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 were written on what it´s called formally anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.What is your thoughts on it? Did eyewitnesses write the Gospels? If so, what´s your best evidence on it?
The biblical Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Jesus is composed of at least three people: 1) The son of Mary of Bethezuba, 2) Jesus of Gamala, high priest, governor of Tiberias, historian who wrote in Greek, and 3) the Samaritan Redeemer slain by Pontius Pilate.
It is unlikely that a gospel writer saw all three events: Mary eating her son, Jesus of Gamala at war with Vespasian at the Battle of Galilee, and the Samaritan Redeemer slain by Pilate.
He placed heavy emphasis on the Jewishness of the gospel authors, on Jesus and his early followers and events that happened during the first century of the common era.
Without viewing events through a Jewish lens, one could never hope to understand what was happening.
NonFingo said
From what I’ve read, I think you’re correct that scholarly consensus holds that none of the four gospels was written by eyewitnesses.To me, a more interesting question is whether any of the gospels incorporate eyewitness reports. I’m currently partway through Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2/E, 2017), in which he argues the gospel writers did have access to such eyewitness reports. I have yet to read Ehrman’s book Jesus Before the Gospels, which argues to the contrary. I very much enjoyed the debates/discussions these authors had: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Perhaps I’m naive, but my natural inclination is to accept the New Testament writers at their word, unless proven otherwise, and assume they are doing their best to tell the truth. So, for example, I tend to believe the author of Luke when he says in his prologue that he has conducted thorough investigations. But then, having said that, he immediately gives us an infancy narrative that can’t possibly be true in its every detail: firstly, it hopelessly contradicts Matthew’s narrative; secondly, there was never any empire-wide census by Augustus; thirdly, no Roman census would require everyone to return to the hometowns of their far-far-distant ancestors; etc., etc.
It’s all very confusing and sometimes makes me want to give up trying to figure out “what really happened.”
I really liked the way you expressed your opinion on the topic in which I also share the same opinion. The example you gave from the gospel of Luke is a great example. This is one of many examples in which I do not hold the belief of inerrancy anymore, in which I used to in the past. I haven´t tried to figure it out what really happened, but at the same time I have come to the conclusion that lots of events portrayed cannot simply be reconcile. So, I also watched the debate between Ehrman and Richard Bauckham.
I am much more inclined to believe that the authors of the gospels somehow had access to some sort of eyewitness reports. It´s just seems to me much more implausible that they had no access to this type of material.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)