Argument from Historical Proximity

[Adam]

Majority scholarship does not consider ANY of the gospels to be eyewitness accounts. What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are often two different things.

"Majority scholarship" comes and goes. I'll link again to my article that is basically an update of what majority scholarship was in the 1950's.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
and see my Post #113 in this thread for further references.
....

But this also assumes that the author composed the gospel solely based on his “eyewitness” memory and we know that none of the gospels were composed from scratch this way. All were an end product of oral transmission and the Jesus-tradition of a particular community. There was no universal form of Christianity at this time. It was still an evolving tradition.

We "know", do we? See my link that shows that I, for one, do "know" that they were all "composed from scratch this way", though none were completely finished this way.

Conversely, the gospels claimed to be presenting history and the communities from which the canonical gospels arose had their own Christology’s with the highest being John.
...
But, far from being eyewitness accounts of Jesus the gospels were based on hearsay - the earliest, Mark, was fourth or fifth removed from Jesus.

No, see my thread "Source Strata in the Gospel of John" that John displays theology from a source, not a later development.
No, in this and the other thread and in my articles I detail the following eyewitnesses: Nicodemus, John Mark, Andrew, John the Apostle (for John) and Matthew, Peter, and Simon Barsabbas (for the Synoptics).

The “facts” are that in the opinion of the majority of textural critics John’s gospel arose within a particular Christian community with its own evolved theology and Jesus tradition and that there are no eyewitness accounts. Are you claiming that majority scholarship is not based on well-based “facts and argument”?

Majority scholarship does not claim that there are no eyewitness evidences in the gospels, but that none of the canonical gospels as they stand today were written by eyewitnesses. I don't disagree with that.

What you do NOT have is the original autograph. You are dependent on texts dating from the 2nd century in an environment of known textural emendations, interpellations and scribal errors and with the known fact that the many different forms of early Christianity ALL claimed to be the authentic version of it - and had their own texts and/or emmnded texts. We know this. Many of the Church Fathers complained about the corrupted texts.

And Lower Criticism has established the best texts. If you keep away from the KJV, the NKJV and such, you need not be worried about corrupted texts.

...What is unreasonable is to assume that the Johannine text is reliable and always been as we see it today when we don’t have the original autograph, nor can we establish its provenance any earlier than the middle second century.

But source criticism can determine what the earlier texts looked like, and they're basically the same as the final redactions in supernatural happenings. Only an atheist presupposition can dismiss them.

But, more to the point, the Prologue of John is not intended to be history. It is a mystical reflection on the divinity and incarnation of the Word made Flesh and entering into time and history – as in John 1.14. (“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”).
This is NOT a factual historical account of Jesus. To think that it is, is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the Prologue.

The Prologue is theology, not history, yes. After compiling much of what Jesus said in his Discourses, Nicodemus wrote the Prologue to give his interpretation of the meaning. He could have written 1:14, but literary criticism cannot prove that, and if it was added by someone else, it would not prove that it was speaking about first-hand manifestation of God.

[Juice]

Apologies for the late reply, been away.

Majority scholarship does not consider ANY of the gospels to be eyewitness accounts. What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are often two different things.

Agreed. And I’ve demonstrated that John claims to be a witness account. Your arguments against (or the arguments put forward by scholars assuming yours are representative of them) have been shown to not hold water.

Overt contradictions, not merely “alleged discrepancies”, as you say. Certainly apologetic ‘spin-doctoring’ can cobble together rationalizations and you are free to believe them if you wish.

I accept them because they are reasonable answers. I accept them because historians try to reconcile secular accounts using similar methods and reasoning. For instance, how many times was Julius Caesar stabbed – 23 or 35? Nicolaus, the earliest account, reports 35 times. Suetonius and Plutarch, much later accounts, each report 23 times. The way Barbara F. McManus reconciles it is that Caesar was stabbed “at least 23 times.” Which, if he were stabbed 35 times, is logically true.

John was so unconcerned with the data of history that he felt free to adjust it to fit his Christology. This is not to say the data of history within the Synoptics was any more accurate – just that John contradicted it.

Or he recorded history as best he could, while emphasizing Christology, and made no conscious effort to change history.

But this also assumes that the author composed the gospel solely based on his “eyewitness” memory and we know that none of the gospels were composed from scratch this way. All were an end product of oral transmission and the Jesus-tradition of a particular community. There was no universal form of Christianity at this time. It was still an evolving tradition.

Or John was composed by an eyewitness using other written sources he had access to as well.

Paul is not concerned with the ‘historical events’ of the Jesus story and was considered by the early Jewish Christian groups to be a dangerous loose cannon.

Patently false that Paul was not concerned with historical events…

”Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord” – Romans 1:1-4

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2

”For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." – 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

”You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” – Galatians 3:1

But never mind, those were probably interpolated too…

Further, you utterly miss the point of my use of Paul and Philippians ch2. Paul’s writings falsify two notions...

1. That “high Christology” or “advanced theology” is necessarily indicative of later composition (later than 50-60 AD anyway) and
2. That if a writer is emphasizing “Christology” he is not concerned with historical events. Scattered throughout Paul’s letters are historical details about Jesus’ life on earth.

But, far from being eyewitness accounts of Jesus the gospels were based on hearsay - the earliest, Mark, was fourth or fifth removed from Jesus.

Unless of course John was an eyewitness account. No one is claiming Mark was an eyewitness account.

What you are “wanting” is for 1.14 to be seen as an eyewitness testimony when this is not its purpose. As well, “no amount of wishful thinking and whining on your part” will make the bald contradictions between the synoptic gospels and John, disappear.

I don’t want 1:14 “to be seen as an eyewitness testimony” it IS a claim to have been a witness to Jesus. You have yet to refute this.

It is useful for a believer to claim eyewitness reportage and of little concern to a non-theist except in debate.

Your many posts and efforts to argue against John being an eyewitness would seem to suggest this is not merely “of little concern.” Indeed, it would it seem you are quite concerned that John is not seen as an eyewitness account.

You are using modern research to project backwards and invalidly argue that fish-eating people live to old age.

Why is that a problem? Were people and fish physiologically different 2,000 years ago?

But, according the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Life expectancy during the pre-modern era was around 30 years” - no doubt there were exceptions and maybe this included John but we have no way of knowing.

High infant mortality in the ancient world can skew life expectancy tables. Again, you counter argument seems to amount to “we don’t know.”

The “facts” are that in the opinion of the majority of textural critics John’s gospel arose within a particular Christian community with its own evolved theology and Jesus tradition and that there are no eyewitness accounts. Are you claiming that majority scholarship is not based on well-based “facts and argument”?

Here is a FACT. John internally claims to be a witness at 1:14. THAT is a FACT. I would claim that any scholar that agues John was not an eyewitness based upon the same arguments you have presented here argues entirely in a circular, beginning with the conclusion that John was not an eyewitness account.

The “fact” is that the only scholars that argue for eyewitness reportage are Christian scholars. I will leave it to others to draw conclusions from this “fact”.

What we can conclude is that your reasoning is faulty if you dismiss the arguments a priori because of from where the arguments originate. That is the Genetic Fallacy.

Not just “a more explicit Christology” but a quite different Christology not found in the earlier gospels – as I detailed previously. None of the earlier gospels present Jesus as pre-existent and eternally divine. For Mark Jesus’ divinity occurred at his baptism and for Matthew/Luke at the virgin birth when god overshadowed Mary and she conceived.

It isn’t a “quite different Christology.” The openings of Matthew, Luke, and John are all very concerned with establishing the divine origins of Jesus and this makes their Christology actually quite similar.

“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).” - Matthew 1:23

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” – John1:1,14

Not a different Christology at all.

Mark chooses to begin his account with John the Baptist so we aren’t given any picture as to Jesus’ divine origins. However, Mark is not without Christology (e.g. Mark 14:61-64).

But your argument over Christology is moot anyway. In the letter to the Philippians (ch. 2) Paul presents a Christology that is very high and not incompatible with John’s. Yet Paul’s letters are much earlier than the John (assuming a later date for John). You skirted around this earlier.

What you do NOT have is the original autograph. You are dependent on texts dating from the 2nd century in an environment of known textural emendations, interpellations and scribal errors and with the known fact that the many different forms of early Christianity ALL claimed to be the authentic version of it - and had their own texts and/or emmended texts. We know this. Many of the Church Fathers complained about the corrupted texts.

Conversely, secular texts do not have anything like the same level of deliberate alterations to promote particular viewpoints.

Uh… how would you know? The manuscript evidence for secular texts is so pathetically sparse, late, and incomplete you can’t possibly make that argument without allowing the reliability of NT texts. For instance, the few surviving manuscripts we have for Tacitus’ main works Histories and Annals are all copies of two manuscripts -Medicean I and II. The earliest of which is dated to the ninth century (a mere 700 years after it was written). The first six books of the Annals exist in only one of those manuscripts Medicean I. Not to mention they contain scribal errors as well.

Caesar’s Gallic Wars has a paltry 10 manuscripts the earliest of which is dated to c 900 AD. Maybe some Julius Caesar fan just added a whole bunch of stuff between, oh let’s say 100 AD and 500 AD, to make him look better.

What is unreasonable is to assume that the Johannine text is reliable and always been as we see it today when we don’t have the original autograph, nor can we establish its provenance any earlier than the middle second century.

If we applied this same argument to the remainder of ancient history we’d be forced into the absurd position of having to also view almost all other secular ancient texts as unreliable as well.

But, more to the point, the Prologue of John is not intended to be history. It is a mystical reflection on the divinity and incarnation of the Word made Flesh and entering into time and history – as in John 1.14. (“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”).

This is NOT a factual historical account of Jesus. To think that it is, is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the Prologue.

The purpose of the prologue is to establish, from the author’s perspective, God became flesh in the man Jesus and lived with them. Now, you can argue that this was merely the author of John’s proclamation and not substantiated history and so on. But that misses the point. It cannot be argued that the author did not claim to be a witness to Jesus. The author of John did claim to be a witness to Jesus and that claim is as plain as day at 1:14.

[Adam]

Apologies for the late reply, been away.

You should have left it alone with my reply. I assumed you had given up. Now once again Tassman can avoid answering me and can continue trading assertions with you. And if Tassman had not replied to me, I could claim that I had vanquished the field and defeated the claim that John is not from an eyewitness.

Or John was composed by an eyewitness using other written sources he had access to as well.

Yes, precisely my position. The problem is that "they" argue that an eyewitness wouldn't need other people's accounts of what he had personally witnessed. They would ask why the "beloved disciple" is mentioned only in the narrative sections of the last one-third of John. That's why it's important to show (as I do) that the sources he used were also from eyewitnesses..

I don’t want 1:14 “to be seen as an eyewitness testimony” it IS a claim to have been a witness to Jesus. You have yet to refute this.
Here is a FACT. John internally claims to be a witness at 1:14. THAT is a FACT. I would claim that any scholar that agues John was not an eyewitness based upon the same arguments you have presented here argues entirely in a circular, beginning with the conclusion that John was not an eyewitness account.

You don't know that it is John making this claim. I believe it is someone else (Nicodemus in my view).
We don't know that the "someone else" is an eyewitness. Any preacher today could include the same statement in any sermon. And there are critics who regard this verse as later or as copied in from some earlier document. John 1:14 does not prove anything. We readers are getting tired of you and Tassman asserting the same things over and over again.
[/QUOTE]

[Juice]

You should have left it alone with my reply. I assumed you had given up. Now once again Tassman can avoid answering me and can continue trading assertions with you. And if Tassman had not replied to me, I could claim that I had vanquished the field and defeated the claim that John is not from an eyewitness.

Vanquished the field because someone doesn’t reply to you? The atheists are laughing…

Yes, precisely my position. The problem is that "they" argue that an eyewitness wouldn't need other people's accounts of what he had personally witnessed.

Actually, “they” argue that John isn’t an eyewitness account at all, haven’t you been paying attention? The argument that an eyewitness would not use someone else’s source was answered, though pertaining to Matthew, in post 33 by seanD anyway.

They would ask why the "beloved disciple" is mentioned only in the narrative sections of the last one-third of John. That's why it's important to show (as I do) that the sources he used were also from eyewitnesses..

Tell me what the argument that "beloved disciple" is mentioned only in the narrative sections of the last one-third of John proves. You seem to think this would prove something. Let’s have it.

You don't know that it is John making this claim. I believe it is someone else (Nicodemus in my view).

Your view is noted. Hardly proven, but noted.

We don't know that the "someone else" is an eyewitness. Any preacher today could include the same statement in any sermon. And there are critics who regard this verse as later or as copied in from some earlier document.

You argue like Tassman. What document was that?

John 1:14 does not prove anything.

It proves the author believed he was reporting from the perspective of an eyewitness.

We readers are getting tired of you and Tassman asserting the same things over and over again.

Actually I’ve provided a fair amount of evidence in this thread to back up arguments. Ever stop to think others are getting tired of your personal views?

[Adam]

Vanquished the field because someone doesn’t reply to you? The atheists are laughing…

Well, you're laughing. Does that make you an Unbeliever?
All the other atheists have dropped off, but that left Tassman's reply to you, which on the face of it could make it look like you now acknowledged that he had gotten the better of you. True, you have responded with a lot of good counter-arguments, but all of the nature of those he had already rejected and adequately (from his point of view) countered.

Actually, “they” argue that John isn’t an eyewitness account at all, haven’t you been paying attention? The argument that an eyewitness would not use someone else’s source was answered, though pertaining to Matthew, in post 33 by seanD anyway.
…

Seand's Post #33 was quite good. I may not have paid due attention to it, as he rarely has anything illuminating to say. However, his post did not deal with the prime issue, that Matthew's own conversion story in Matthew was copied from Mark, whereas in my analysis Matthew the Apostle did write (in Q) his own conversion story that stands in Mark and Matthew (and Luke).

Tell me what the argument that "beloved disciple" is mentioned only in the narrative sections of the last one-third of John proves. You seem to think this would prove something. Let’s have it.
…

Because that's the part that John did write as an eyewitness, particularly John 13, 20, and 21. See my Post #74.

Your view is noted. Hardly proven, but noted.
…

You would rather give up on the idea of the Gospel of John being written by an eyewitness than to have Nicodemus as the primary eyewitness?

You argue like Tassman. What document was that?
…

I knew I shouldn't have gotten into a battle with a fellow Christian. But since you insist, the unpleasant matter to bring up is that Teeple (for one) sorts out John 1:13-14 as a "Christian gnostic hymn". So regarded, I cannot even bring it forth as an argument that Nicodemus was presenting this as his eyewitness statement. I'm using the atheist Teeple as my resource in claiming that his sources support my assignment of Andrew, Nicodemus, and the two Johns as eyewitnesses, but this particular detail does not work to our benefit.

It proves the author believed he was reporting from the perspective of an eyewitness.
…

As I just stated, it does not, and is most emphatically not a proof.

Actually I’ve provided a fair amount of evidence in this thread to back up arguments. Ever stop to think others are getting tired of your personal views?

The atheists certainly are. Dr Cranberry, Doug Shaver, The Pixie and showmeproof have stopped responding on this thread, and YourMaster, DougShaver and robertb stopped on my thread, "Source Strata in the Gospel of John". (It was never necessary to engage Composer.) I don't recall that any of these signed off gloating that he had bested me.
Lots of your evidence is good, but nothing is presented that can undercut an unbeliever, and just saying it again does not get us anywhere. I can't fathom how you can make such a big deal of John 1:14 that could be an interpolation. You keep trying to come back to John as the eyewitness even though he is never named in the gospel and there is never an "I" statement.

[Tassman]

"Majority scholarship" comes and goes. I'll link again to my article that is basically an update of what majority scholarship was in the 1950's.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
and see my Post #113 in this thread for further references.

Majority opinion is dictated by scholarship, not fashion, and it’s the best we have available at this time.

We "know", do we? See my link that shows that I, for one, do "know" that they were all "composed from scratch this way", though none were completely finished this way.

You may “know”, but yours is a minority viewpoint. You could be right but the chances are that you are not. It’s not for me to say.

Regardless, the majority view of Johns’ composition and all the canonical gospels is that they are the end product of oral transmission and the evolved Jesus-tradition of a particular Christian community.

No, see my thread "Source Strata in the Gospel of John" that John displays theology from a source, not a later development.
No, in this and the other thread and in my articles I detail the following eyewitnesses: Nicodemus, John Mark, Andrew, John the Apostle (for John) and Matthew, Peter, and Simon Barsabbas (for the Synoptics).

John’s Christology virtually guarantees it being a late gospel. I don’t know your articles but I gather they are not the majority view and I don’t have time to explore the minor scholastic byways. It’s enough keeping up with the mainstream. I’m sorry! I know it is important for you.

Majority scholarship does not claim that there are no eyewitness evidences in the gospels, but that none of the canonical gospels as they stand today were written by eyewitnesses. I don't disagree with that.

Yes, there are probably some episodes originally based on eyewitness sources – but they had been filtered and embellished during their oral transmission by the time they were recorded in the gospels and come down to us.

And Lower Criticism has established the best texts. If you keep away from the KJV, the NKJV and such, you need not be worried about corrupted texts.

But source criticism can determine what the earlier texts looked like, and they're basically the same as the final redactions in supernatural happenings. Only an atheist presupposition can dismiss them

But, we do not have the original autographs and although much can be reconstructed with reasonable surety there is some that simply cannot – this according to Erhman’s ‘Jesus Interrupted’, which I’ve just finished. Only a theist would place too much weight on them.

The Prologue is theology, not history, yes. After compiling much of what Jesus said in his Discourses, Nicodemus wrote the Prologue to give his interpretation of the meaning. He could have written 1:14, but literary criticism cannot prove that, and if it was added by someone else, it would not prove that it was speaking about first-hand manifestation of God.

Your theory of Nicodemus’ authorship of the Discourses and The Prologue is yours alone as far as I can determine – I’ve not come across it before. But I agree with your conclusion about The Prologue as opposed to 'Juice'.. It is theology, not eyewitness reportage.

[The Pixie]

Adam

In your Post #85 you requested my logic regarding Luke as my starting point for my common sense approach to gospel study. I responded in #90, giving a pedantic presentation stating the obvious that the date of writing is more likely to be when the story concludes irresolutely than to have been written at a later time when the author would more likely have given us the upshot...

So what you are saying is that your claim that Luke was writing at a certain date is based on what you intuitively consider to be likely?

See that is fine if all you are doing is pesenting your opinion, but I kind of got the impression that you were offering something more certain than that. Have I got that wrong?

Quite unlike Doug Shaver's Post #103 sophistication about probalities, logic, and doubt, you seem entrapped in what I exposed in my #94 as "The Logical Fallacy", that everything is subject to absolute proof or disproof.

I am not demanding proof, but some degree of certainty. Can you assess the probability that Luke was writing before Paul died? Do you intuitively feel it is 30%, 70%, 95%, what?

In a reply to SMP you said: "Granted that my analysis is not consensus opinion, nevertheless it has every right to quash atheists who keep muttering that there is no eyewitness record in the gospels." How can you "quash" those atheists if all you have is a 30% or even a 70% probability?

As if all I would have to do is tidy up the logical steps in my opening paragraphs in my article, and suddenly you would become a Christian?

If you offered evidence that it was 95% likely that Luke was written before Paul died, then I would believe that Luke was probably written before Paul died. From that basis, I might then be convinced about the other claims in the article.

As it is, I see nothing to make me think this is even 50% likely. To be frank, the fact that you find it intuitive does absolutely nothing to sway me to your argument.

My characterization of you as "by-the-numbers" was my polite way of characterizing the ST personality type that completely lacks intuitive insight and intellect and instead is mired in petty details of the senses.

I got that. What is intuitive to you, as a Christian, is likely not to be intuitive to me, as an atheist. Different world views will give us different intuitions. Furthermore, intuition is a very poor basis to an argument. As a starting point to an investigation, it is great - it gives us an idea of where to look. But you have to then look for and present the evidence that turns up.

In fact, your emotive language here seems to be saying that evidence is not important! Absolutely, I think that what we can sense is important, and far outweighs your intuition. Can you imagine a lawyer in court standing up and saying "My learned opponent lacks intuitive insight and intellect and instead is mired in petty details of the senses"? Court cases are based on evidence, evidence from the senses. They are not based on intuition. Science and history are the same. All our scientific knowledge and history come to us through the senses, not from intuition.

[Composer]

Or he recorded history as best he could, while emphasizing Christology, and made no conscious effort to change history.

It isn’t a “quite different Christology.” The openings of Matthew, Luke, and John are all very concerned with establishing the divine origins of Jesus and this makes their Christology actually quite similar.

“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).” - Matthew 1:23

Matthew 1:23 (Isaiah 7:14)

It is sometimes asserted that the name Immanuel - "God is with us" - given to Jesus proves that he is God. If that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was given by Isaiah in the days of Ahaz, would also have been God.

The name, however, does not tell us that Jesus is God, but that in his life God has intervened to save His people. The parents who in Old Testament times called their son Ithiel (Prov. 30:1) - "God is with me" - did not believe their offspring to be Deity.

Names of this type indicate the divine event associated with the life of the individual so named. God, the Father of Jesus, was certainly with Israel as He worked through His unique Son. In the life of Jesus, the Son of God, God had visited His people.

A Trinitarian scholar of the last century wrote: "To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine [of the Deity of Jesus] is a fallacious argument, although many Trinitarians have urged it. Jerusalem is called 'Jehovah our Righteousness.' Is Jerusalem also Divine?"36


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. Moses Stuart, Answer to Channing, cited in Concessions, 236

Better luck next time!

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” – John1:1,14

IF your jesus was literally pre-existant as claimed, then amongst other matters fatal to your trinitarian cause, your jesus was a pseudo Santa jesus -

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus: -

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (Extract from: a_hayward/come_down/comedownfromheaven.htm#4)

[Juice]

Well, you're laughing. Does that make you an Unbeliever?
All the other atheists have dropped off, but that left Tassman's reply to you, which on the face of it could make it look like you now acknowledged that he had gotten the better of you. True, you have responded with a lot of good counter-arguments, but all of the nature of those he had already rejected and adequately (from his point of view) countered.

I hadn’t responded because I was away. It’s the absolute height of hubris to claim with any seriousness victory in a debate. It’s a monumental flaw in reasoning to conclude one has vanquished the field because the field has stopped replying. The mistake you make is you think I’m here to convince people like Tassman. I’m not.

Because that's the part that John did write as an eyewitness, particularly John 13, 20, and 21. See my Post #74.

I fail to see how that proves anything. You seem to be filtering everything through Teeple. Why?

You would rather give up on the idea of the Gospel of John being written by an eyewitness than to have Nicodemus as the primary eyewitness?

Some seem to mistakenly think it necessary the author of John must be either named or identified with great certainty for John to be considered an eyewitness account. I don’t hold that conviction. I don’t hold that conviction because it isn’t necessary for secular works to be considered an eyewitness account.

I knew I shouldn't have gotten into a battle with a fellow Christian. But since you insist, the unpleasant matter to bring up is that Teeple (for one) sorts out John 1:13-14 as a "Christian gnostic hymn". So regarded, I cannot even bring it forth as an argument that Nicodemus was presenting this as his eyewitness statement. I'm using the atheist Teeple as my resource in claiming that his sources support my assignment of Andrew, Nicodemus, and the two Johns as eyewitnesses, but this particular detail does not work to our benefit.

Since Tassman avoided my question maybe you can answer it. Even if it were “poetic imagery” [or a “hymn”], poetry [or a “hymn”] can still reflect the author’s observation of actual history. Do you deny this?

Lots of your evidence is good, but nothing is presented that can undercut an unbeliever, and just saying it again does not get us anywhere. I can't fathom how you can make such a big deal of John 1:14 that could be an interpolation.

Notice the progression in Tassman’s arguments in this thread over one little verse (I haven't even touched any of the other evidence in support of John being an eyewitness). He has thrown almost everything he can at John 1:14 – that it was a lie to bolster the account, it may have been interpolated, it is merely “poetic imagery.” He's been grasping at straws because there is no good argument against John 1:14. He recognizes the significance of this one verse and has fought unsuccessfully tooth and nail to dismiss it. Don’t you think that says something? I think it does.

You keep trying to come back to John as the eyewitness even though he is never named in the gospel and there is never an "I" statement.

Don’t be such a fundy. I find it curious that someone who argues for the “poetic” expressions in John would then demand such literal expressions such as “I.” Logically “We” implies “I” anyway. Tassman tried to make that silly argument too.

Further I humbly suggest you try expanding your reading to some other ancient secular works that never internally claim “I” or authorship but are widely regarded as eyewitness accounts.

[Doug Shaver]

Dr Cranberry, Doug Shaver, The Pixie and showmeproof have stopped responding on this thread

I have not stopped, but I am not always content with posting a sound bite. I have been working on some responses, but there are other demands on my time. I will post something when I can get it the way I like it.

[Adam]

Adam

So what you are saying is that your claim that Luke was writing at a certain date is based on what you intuitively consider to be likely?

My intuition is telling me that you still have not read more than 2% of even the four articles to which I linked. Your intuition is telling you that there is nothing in the rest of the articles that is not dependent on the 2% that you intuitively dismiss. Your intuition is telling you that you can dismiss without reading all the additional references in my posts #113 and #121 that my posting on this thread and my"Source Strata in the Gospel of John" thread.
And let me say once again that even in the 2% I list the "we" passages in Acts that show the author was an eyewitness to that. Your intuition tells you that that is fakery? I would regard it as solid evidence, though not 100% proof. 95%?
And my intuition is telling me that rational discourse with you is impossible.

Science and history are the same. All our scientific knowledge and history come to us through the senses, not from intuition.

I challenge you to find one philosopher of science or one historiographer who would agree with you. (I was a Philosophy major for a while and have an M. A. in History.)

[shunyadragon]

Because that's the part that John did write as an eyewitness, particularly John 13, 20, and 21. See my Post #74.

You would rather give up on the idea of the Gospel of John being written by an eyewitness than to have Nicodemus as the primary eyewitness?

I do not believe that John is considered an eyewitness testimony by most scholars, and there is no evidence that it is. It is not a matter of giving it up. the history of the document just does not support, nor that any of the gospels are written by eyewitness authors..

[The Pixie]

Adam

I asked: I am not demanding proof, but some degree of certainty. Can you assess the probability that Luke was writing before Paul died? Do you intuitively feel it is 30%, 70%, 95%, what?

And let me say once again that even in the 2% I list the "we" passages in Acts that show the author was an eyewitness to that. Your intuition tells you that that is fakery? I would regard it as solid evidence, though not 100% proof. 95%?

You seem to have lost the thread of our discussion.

We are arguing about the dating of Luke and Acts, and the probability of that being prior to the death of Paul, not whether this is a fake. To be blunt, this looks like a dodge, but you can, of course, show it to be otherwise - just answer the question in a straightforward manner.

Your assertion is that (1) the author is an eye witness to at least some of Acts and (2) he was writing before the death of Paul (on the basis that the death of Paul is not included).

While you offer one plausible possibility, there are several others. Perhaps the author wrote the account long after the death of Paul, but died himself before completing the account. Perhaps he was unaware of the death of Paul (maybe it did not happen the way you think it did; what is the evidence for Paul's martyrdom exactly?). Maybe the author wanted to end the account on a high (he might have thought that "He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!" was going to win more converts than an account of a beheading). It could as readily be something neither of us have thought of.

So the question is: How certain can you be that Acts was written before Paul was beheaded, and how do you justify that certainty?

With regards to the author being an eye witness, the fact that it is not until the sixteenth chapter of Acts that the author uses the first person plural suggests to me that he was not part of Paul's group until Paul headed to Macedonia. This really does not look like a witness to anything that occurred during Jesus' time.

Pix: Furthermore, intuition is a very poor basis to an argument. As a starting point to an investigation, it is great - it gives us an idea of where to look. But you have to then look for and present the evidence that turns up. ... Science and history are the same. All our scientific knowledge and history come to us through the senses, not from intuition.

Adam: I challenge you to find one philosopher of science or one historiographer who would agree with you. (I was a Philosophy major for a while and have an M. A. in History.)

Are you aware of how the scientific method works? I guess not.

A scientist will devise a hypothesis to explain an observation. This is where the intuition comes in. However, the hypothesis at this stage is worthless, it is only when there is evidence for it (specifically that the predictions it makes are fulfilled) that a hypothesis will be accepted as science.

You seem to want to label that collecting of evidence as "mired in petty details of the senses".

Perhaps you can find some historians or scientists who are happy to accomodate new ideas on the base of intuition, when the evidence is entirely lacking. You have an M.A. in history, so I am sure that that will be easy for you (me, I have a Ph.D. in science, so I do have some clue about this).

[Juice]

On March 28, 2011 in post 13 Sunydragon asserted - ”We do not have any documented first hand testimonies from people who knew Jesus and Mary.”

That assertion, for the most part, set the whole ball in motion for the next 8 pages and 118 posts. Shunydragon’s contribution? Nothing, not a single post. Shunydragon utterly disappears from the thread for the next 8 pages, 118 posts, and 24 days.

Does he return to argue for his assertion in a meaningful way and address the evidence and arguments?

No, he reappears to make a classic Argument by Assertion as follows…

I do not believe that John is considered an eyewitness testimony by most scholars, and there is no evidence that it is.

Gotta hand it to you Shunydragon, that was smooth. You da man…

[Tassman]

Apologies for the late reply, been away.

Agreed. And I’ve demonstrated that John claims to be a witness account. Your arguments against (or the arguments put forward by scholars assuming yours are representative of them) have been shown to not hold water.

The authors of 2 Peter and 1 Timothy both claimed to be eyewitnesses but we know they weren’t. Anyone can make a claim; it doesn’t make it true.

As well the only evidence you provide is a verse from The Prologue – and The Prologue is not intended as history. It is a mystical meditation on the nature of Jesus Christ, i.e. it is metaphor.

I accept them because they are reasonable answers. I accept them because historians try to reconcile secular accounts using similar methods and reasoning. For instance, how many times was Julius Caesar stabbed – 23 or 35? Nicolaus, the earliest account, reports 35 times. Suetonius and Plutarch, much later accounts, each report 23 times. The way Barbara F. McManus reconciles it is that Caesar was stabbed “at least 23 times.” Which, if he were stabbed 35 times, is logically true.

Professor Elaine Pagels makes the point that ascertaining "authentic" material in the gospels is virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence.

As well there are numerous flat contradictions and inconsistencies and the combination of these plus the difficulty in obtaining “authentic” material renders any harmonization suspect.

Plus secular history cannot be compared with the history of alleged supernatural occurrences. From a historians viewpoint any natural explanation no matter how unlikely is preferable to a supernatural one. No-one can rule out a natural explanation 100%, thus Christian ‘scholars’ are more apologists than historians.

In Caesar’s case there are independent sources testifying to his life and death, plus artifacts and his own writings. In short there is an abundance of evidence for Caesar’s life but not for Jesus’ life and death.

Or he recorded history as best he could, while emphasizing Christology, and made no conscious effort to change history.


Or John was composed by an eyewitness using other written sources he had access to as well.

The day and time of the crucifixion in John enables the author’s big point about Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God given that it took place at the same time the actual sacrificial lambs were being butchered for sacrifice.

And the fact is that it flatly contradicts the Synoptic’s timing of the crucifixion. We don’t know if either of the accounts is accurate.

Patently false that Paul was not concerned with historical events…

”Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord” – Romans 1:1-4

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2

”For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." – 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

”You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” – Galatians 3:1

But never mind, those were probably interpolated too…

There are no instances in any of Paul's genuine writings where he claims to have ever met an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth as detailed in the later gospels such as the Triumphal entry, cleansing the temple, healing miracles and teachings etc, etc, etc. Virtually nothing!

Further, all accounts about Jesus in Paul, such as we have, could only have come from other believers, i.e. hearsay, or his heavenly revelation on the Damascus Road.

Further, you utterly miss the point of my use of Paul and Philippians ch2. Paul’s writings falsify two notions...

1. That “high Christology” or “advanced theology” is necessarily indicative of later composition (later than 50-60 AD anyway) and
2. That if a writer is emphasizing “Christology” he is not concerned with historical events. Scattered throughout Paul’s letters are historical details about Jesus’ life on earth.

You missed the point that majority scholarship regards the early Jesus communities as each having their own Jesus tradition. A whole range of theological perspectives existed in the early church as diverse as those of the Jerusalem Church, Pauline theology and Christian Gnostics.

What are the historical details about Jesus’ life on earth in Paul which you are claiming?

Unless of course John was an eyewitness account. No one is claiming Mark was an eyewitness account.


I don’t want 1:14 “to be seen as an eyewitness testimony” it IS a claim to have been a witness to Jesus. You have yet to refute this.


Your many posts and efforts to argue against John being an eyewitness would seem to suggest this is not merely “of little concern.” Indeed, it would it seem you are quite concerned that John is not seen as an eyewitness account.

The very type material of John’s gospel (i.e. long theological discourses) explicitly excludes it as an eye-witness account. The author was a theologian who rethought the meaning of Jesus' life, and interpreted it in his own way with little regard to its historicity or compatibility with other Jesus traditions.

What you regard as a “claim” is not seen by most scholars as such. Even if it was, it is unlikely to have been true – see above.

Why is that a problem? Were people and fish physiologically different 2,000 years ago?


High infant mortality in the ancient world can skew life expectancy tables. Again, you counter argument seems to amount to “we don’t know.”

Not quite! My counter argument is that we don’t know but that it’s unlikely given that the median life-span in that era was 35 years - fish diet or no fish diet.

Here is a FACT. John internally claims to be a witness at 1:14. THAT is a FACT. I would claim that any scholar that agues John was not an eyewitness based upon the same arguments you have presented here argues entirely in a circular, beginning with the conclusion that John was not an eyewitness account.

What we can conclude is that your reasoning is faulty if you dismiss the arguments a priori because of from where the arguments originate. That is the Genetic Fallacy.

John 1.14 is presented as “FACT” by you but rejected as “FACT” by majority scholarship. The only “fact” is the claim - not that it’s a correct claim.

It isn’t a “quite different Christology.” The openings of Matthew, Luke, and John are all very concerned with establishing the divine origins of Jesus and this makes their Christology actually quite similar.

“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).” - Matthew 1:23

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” – John1:1,14

Not a different Christology at all.

Mark chooses to begin his account with John the Baptist so we aren’t given any picture as to Jesus’ divine origins. However, Mark is not without Christology (e.g. Mark 14:61-64).

But your argument over Christology is moot anyway. In the letter to the Philippians (ch. 2) Paul presents a Christology that is very high and not incompatible with John’s. Yet Paul’s letters are much earlier than the John (assuming a later date for John). You skirted around this earlier.

Yes “Mark chooses to begin his account with John the Baptist” for the very good reason that for him Jesus attains his divine status at the opening of the heavens, the descent of the dove and god’s voice declaring Jesus to be his son. Just as Jesus achieved it in Matthew and Luke when god overshadowed Mary and she conceived.

Only John shows Jesus as the pre-existent god, eternally divine.

Re the epistles including Philippians, Paul and other early writers speak of Jesus entirely in terms of a spiritual and heavenly figure. Jesus’ earthly life as a teacher and miracle worker is never mentioned. It was a different Jesus tradition and arose from a different Christian community.

Uh… how would you know? The manuscript evidence for secular texts is so pathetically sparse, late, and incomplete you can’t possibly make that argument without allowing the reliability of NT texts. For instance, the few surviving manuscripts we have for Tacitus’ main works Histories and Annals are all copies of two manuscripts -Medicean I and II. The earliest of which is dated to the ninth century (a mere 700 years after it was written). The first six books of the Annals exist in only one of those manuscripts Medicean I. Not to mention they contain scribal errors as well.

Caesar’s Gallic Wars has a paltry 10 manuscripts the earliest of which is dated to c 900 AD. Maybe some Julius Caesar fan just added a whole bunch of stuff between, oh let’s say 100 AD and 500 AD, to make him look better.


If we applied this same argument to the remainder of ancient history we’d be forced into the absurd position of having to also view almost all other secular ancient texts as unreliable as well.

In secular history we are dealing with secular figures, not ‘supernatural divinities’. There may be differences regarding the details but, unlike Jesus, there is very little controversy over whom or what they were. They were regular men and women.

More significantly, with the likes of Caesar there are independent sources, multiple artifacts including statues and coins from life etc. None of this exists for Jesus and there are NO contemporary writers or historians (e.g. Philo) that even mention his existence.

The purpose of the prologue is to establish, from the author’s perspective, God became flesh in the man Jesus and lived with them. Now, you can argue that this was merely the author of John’s proclamation and not substantiated history and so on. But that misses the point. It cannot be argued that the author did not claim to be a witness to Jesus. The author of John did claim to be a witness to Jesus and that claim is as plain as day at 1:14.

You can argue that the author of John claimed to be an eyewitness if you choose to ignore the mythic nature of The Prologue. But to make a claim is not to say it is true. The authors of 2 Peter and 1 Timothy claimed to be eyewitnesses but, despite their claims, they were not eyewitnesses.