RICHARD BAUCKHAM JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

[eklektika2728]

I'll take Richard Bauckham over RIchard Dawkins any day.

[ShadeCanopy]

So, did eyewitnesses have direct input into the content of the Gospels? If so, was that input significant?

[andyandbeyond]

Love the videos, but stripping them down and doing away with the visual effects would be much less distracting.

[pppz0r]

I found Bauckham's book relies on a lot of circular arguments. Eg. in writing on the naked youth in Mk 14: "If the episode is based on a real event and is not just a fictional embellishment of the passion narrative, then the story can only have come from the young man's own telling of it. It is an example of eyewitness testimony from a person involved in the events." Its posited historical accuracy determines that it is eyewitness testimony which establishes its historical accuracy.

[brh044]

It can't help that nearly every person in that area of the world at the time, were either illiterate or poorly educated. just throwin it out there..

[fndog]

@brh044 I'm an atheist and have a very great interest in ancient history. I can't stand everyone saying these people were illiterate or poorly educated. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hebrews, and others were extremely literate and intelligent. Read Babylonian poetry, literature, mythology, science, mathematics, astronomy, architecture, politics, and technology, and tell me they were not the most advanced people of their time. Modern Arabs are far less educated than their ancestors.

[BrentonSteinhilber]

Oh my...

[BrellK]

It's fantastic that the writers of the gospels were able to talk to eyewitnesses, and therefore we KNOW it's true.

Coincidentally, I'm writing a book about SPIDERMAN, and I'm writing with eyewitness accounts...

[zugokku123]

@BrellK Can you die for your "SPIDERMAN" ?

[BrellK]

@zugokku123 I suppose I COULD die for Spiderman, in the same way Muslims die for Allah, Christians for their God and Jews for YHWH. In all cases, it is bloody, violent and unnecessary. What makes you think that dying for your deity makes it any more real?

[Jesrael1986M]

@BrellK The question is, could you die for a religion that you made up, hence knowing that it is false? Yet the leaders of the early church, including Peter, James, John and Paul were willing to suffer for the message they preached, which (according to them) they recieved from Jesus Christ - AFTER He rose from the dead. Infact, James and Paul did not follow Jesus during His lifetime, they got converted when they met the Lord after His resurrection.

[BrellK]

@Jesrael1986M Yea, I definitely think that if I wanted to be remembered and I was some sort of loser I COULD decide to make something up and endure torture for it. Again, all OTHER religious leaders that were persecuted after coming up with their wacky ideas were still wrong. You have to understand, that to the OTHER religious leaders, I would imagine that mostly they generally thought that they DID have the truth. So yes, I'm sure some would endure torture.

[nickhts]

@BrellK Not sure I follow. Nobody's arguing that people dying for their beliefs (e.g. the 'OTHER religious leaders' who 'thought that they DID have the truth') proves anything; people have died for false beliefs throughout history. The only point here is that if the resurrection didn't happen, the apostles died knowing their claim was just made up.

[BrellK]

@nickhts You have COMPLETELY excluded the possibility that the apostles could be wrong AND the ressurection didn't happen. That's a PRETTY big absence of other ideas. Do you discount the fact that perhaps they had convinced themselves they were correct? That does not need to be malicious intent, but with such a tramautic event, one could have a vision that isn't actually "true". We're also assuming the texts are accurate.

[wfstapleton]

@BrellK It would not be unusual for 1 or 2 authors to be deluded. But the NT has at least 8 authors, each of whom (excepting John, who was tortured but did not die) died horrible deaths rather than simply say: "OK, I could be wrong about this. Don't kill me and I'll just add a 'maybe' into my testimony." Then you have Paul, who simply says: "Look, you don't have to trust me. Many of the other people who saw Jesus after His resurrection are still alive. Check it out with them." (1Co 15:6)

[BrellK]

@wfstapleton The NT has 8 "reported" authors. Nobody knows the history clear enough to know for sure. Again, the simple point that some of these people allegedly died believing in something doesn't make it true. People die believing they'll get 72 virgins (or white raisins depending on the translation) when they die, and I'm fairly certain that doesnt happen. Your response doesn't take into account the idea that they may be wrong but fully convicted by what happend to them.

[nickhts]

That leaves us with 'the apostles wanted to be remembered and were losers'... You'd have to go further here. The gospels depict the apostles as fickle, quarrelsome and frequently clueless. So they'd have to be losers who wanted to be remembered as losers. But this would be an ad hoc assertion. It's only more plausible than the resurrection if you've already proved that the resurrection couldn't possibly have happened, which is the point in question.

[BrellK]

@nickhts So, opposed to the argument that perhaps people wrote a story and were modest... OR that the story was written afterward and the apostles did not have direct say in how they were portrayed... you think it is more plausible that someone rose from the dead? And you are willing to accept that simply because nobody can "disprove" it? (ie: Nobody can find 2,000 year old bones, including the religious people who would want them)

[wfstapleton]

@BrellK Very specious argument. The post you responded to clearly posits that each and every one of the Apostles died horrible deaths rather than simply recant that they had witnessed the living Jesus after His death. Any court in the world would accept their testimony and any impartial jury would find in their favor. Yet you hold yourself above these historically reliable resources. Hmmmm. . .

[wfstapleton]

@nickhts I think you meant to say "ad hominem". An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be adapted to other purposes.

[nickhts]

@wfstapleton Hi. I meant ad hoc in this case - it's not an established, useful observation that people who are losers usually want to be remembered as losers. To accuse the disciples of being losers who wanted to be remembered as losers would be to invent a solution for this specific problem. (Or am I misusing 'ad hoc' here? Probably!)

[macroman52]

@Jesrael1986M : Don't the Mormons have stories of the early believers in the angle Moroni (i.e. the mormons) suffering very great hardships for their beliefs? And don't we think the founder made it up? The mormons were chased out of various places and persecuted, and the Church of LDS continues to grow at least as quickly as early christianity. But I agree that Paul, at least, sincerely believed that some sort of God/Son of God called Jesus Christ spoke to him in some sort of vision.

[wfstapleton]

@macroman52 LDS have no eyewitnesses to the testimony of Joseph Smith. He claims to have seen the angel Moroni (please note the spelling, angles are quite a different thing). Smith's testimony stands alone, and converts are asked to believe it based upon a "burning in the bosom" they will receive when they think and pray about it. An inward, subjective witness is as different a thing from historical reliability as angles are from angels.

[filorps]

Christianity isn't the only religion with "eyewitnesses"

[filorps]

Furthermore, there are eyewitnesses today by people claiming to have seen this holyman or that yogi perform one miracle or another. (interestingly enough, these claims come from regions with a low level of education and literacy)

[vint7107]

Where does this guy teach and does he accept students to do doctoral dissertations under his guidance?! I'm picking up this book...

[seattlefs]

SeattlefsIt's important to understand that before the time the Gospels were written there was a high rate of illiteracy and also due the costs of purchasing materials for writing. These people didn't have all the resources right off hand and there are some good reasons as to why they didn't write the Gospels until much later.

[Youlube32]

@ebal They are eyewitness accounts. Luke opens with a preface explaining that he he is writing on eyewitness testimony. Mark is writing Peter's account. John has an internal claim to have been written by an eyewitness. The evidence ain't good for form critics.

[ebaltrace]

Why did it take more than 40 years to write the gospels when the Apostles were supposed to publish and spread the word to the whole world? Were they saving up to buy pencils? Nothing in the gospels is written from the view point of an eyewitness. It is just a fictional story.

Ebal the Atheist

[waddellski]

they were written in greek because it was the lingua franca of the ancient world

this man is a proffesor at st andrews, he didn't just invent this because he wanted to prove the bible account, he is being more honest than most other people who start with your supposition that the bible is crap,

got his book infront of me now too bust writting essays to read it, had a flick, looks great.

in academia we need other oppinions, not just the same old propaganda

[ebaltrace]

@waddellski Why 40 plus years?

Why no eye witness accounts?

Ebal the Atheist

[stevemaxchillin]

Because they lived within "Oral Culture" Stories werent written, they were spoken.

We today may ask would this begin an domino effect of Chinese whispers? Within 1st century the over arching mindeset was shame and honour and getting a story wrong at all was an extremely shameful act.

We have to off our worldviews glasses to understand fully.

[ebaltrace]

@stevemaxchillin There have been studies examining oral transmission. They always make mistakes and improve the story with each retelling.

Ebal the Atheist

[caveatemp]

@ebaltrace Read his book. Learn how history was written in the 1st century.

If it's a fictional story, then it's the greatest conspiracy theory since JFK. With centuries more people believing it!

[ebaltrace]

@caveatemp The Gospels are not written from the perspective of an eyewitness. They are written like a TV Drama show, where the reader can see and hear private conversations. How could anyone know the private conversation between Pilate and his wife, for example? It's the sure mark that the story is fiction.

[caveatemp]

@ebaltrace You're drawing your conclusions based on not knowing how aural history was written. It is all based on testimonies that people who were the original eyewitnesses were telling their whole lives. You don't think Pilate and his wife led completely insular lives?

[ebaltrace]

@caveatemp Actually, I read two books about studies by scientists studying the accuracy of oral transmission of information over a long period of time. The results of the studies were that the people involved in the transmission of information believed that they were being accurate in transmission but actually did very poorly.

Do you suppose that Pilate and his wife socialized with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and discussed their private conversations?

[ebaltrace]

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be PUBLISHED among all nations.

So what took the Gospel writers more than 40 years after Jesus' death to write the Gospels?

Then why were the Gospels written anonymously?

Why were they written in Greek rather than the Language of the Jews?

The Jesus story reeks with the smell of fabrication.

Ebal the Atheist

[revdolaf]

@ ebaltrace: You really should read Bauckham's book so you know what his thesis is before you comment on it. (not that I haven't done the same on occasion). Here are two possible responses:

- the Gospels started as eyewitness testimonies. Once people who had been around Jesus got older, they started writing those stories down, 'lest we forget'.

- each Gospel story is different, but not diametrically opposed. There is a family resemblance, but no sign of imposed conformity

[ebaltrace]

@revdolaf Not a single one of the gospels was written from the perspective of an eye witness. If you examine the synoptic gospels carefully you see that Matthew and Luke are really edited versions of Mark. They each wrote a new and improved version by updating various details. Actually contradicting Mark. Look for yourself...Open your eyes

Ebal the Atheist

[revdolaf]

@ebaltrace. Further comments:

- a lot of ancient literature was either written anonymously or under a 'pen-name' (like The Books of Enoch or the Letters to Timothy). The Gospel of Luke is hardly anonymous, and is also much closer to Greek historiography.

- Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient world, if you wanted something published and disseminated you wrote it in Greek. Besides, Jesus and his disciples didn't speak Hebrew but Aramaic.

Love n Peace

[ebaltrace]

@revdolaf I said language of the Jews . I didn't say Hebrew. Just because other literature was written anonymously doesn't excuse the gospels from being written anonymously. If the story were true, it would have been the greatest story ever told, so the writers should have identified themselves to establish the authenticity of their gospels.

Ebal the Atheist

[revdolaf]

@ebaltrace:First: you can't project our own categories from modern historical prose onto ancient literature, that's a basic error in methodology.The technique of not naming the author is used to bolster the authority of the writing in question. Secondly, the distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic is tremendously important, using a bucket phrase like 'the language of the Jews' is way too imprecise. Thirdly, the idea that Luke and Matthew just edited Mark does not hold up to scutiny.

[revdolaf]

@ebaltrace: Continued from above. There is some evidence that Luke and Matthew found the Gospel of Mark to be unsatisfactory, and aimed to improve on what he had told. Does that mean they were fabricating their stories? Remains to be proven, unless you have already decided in your mind you don't want the story to be true.

Look, I'm not saying we should read Scripture uncritically and just swallow the Gospels as the Great Truth to be Beleived and Obeyed at All Costs. (to be cont'd)

[revdolaf]

@ebaltrace: all I'm asking for is a bit of respect for the modern and ancient writers you are commenting on. They were neither as stupid or as ignorant as you assume, and the issues involved in sifting historical data from the Gospels is complex and important enough to deserve more than pretty slogans and black-and-white desciptions from the latest blockbuster. Thanks for keeping the discussion farly civil, btw.

Love n peace

[caveatemp]

@revdolaf Amen! It's really funny how infantile the criticism can be, isn't it?

[TimotheosCauvin]

1. The gospel content was around as kerygma ton apostolon since the resurrection. It was put into writing when the death of apostles and eyewitnesses was forseeable in order to preserve their testimony.

2. Anonymously, cause they were not just written by a single author - they are the products of early Christian communions, quoting from different sources (eyewitness accounts, Q).

3. Greek was the lingua franka, the English of the 1. century. Koine helped to spread ...

Tim the Christian

[pppz0r]

@ebaltrace Misquote. Mark 13:10 says the gospel must be preached, not published.

[ebaltrace]

@pppz0r Go look in your lexicon.

Ebal the Atheist

[zmode82]

Ahh! Richard Bauckham, my favorite scholar. I recommend the book, guys check it out.

[ebaltrace]

Matthew 14:3 For when Herod had John arrested, he bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip.

Herodias had been the wife of Herod the Landless, another brother of Herod, and not Philip. Philip was married to Salome the daughter of Herodias.

This error shows the gospels are not historical, and not the inspired word of God.

Ebal the Atheist

[zugokku123]

" it is more likely that Philip was a second name for another Herod and does not mean Philip the Tetrarch (Haenchen, 237; Hoehner, Antipas, 132136)."

Guelich, Robert A.: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 34A), S. 331

[ebaltrace]

@zugokku123 Christian Apologists just make up any stuff that they think will fly in order to explain away problems.

Assumes facts not in evidence,

Ebal the Atheist

[revdolaf]

@ebaltrace : the authors quoted by zugokko123 are biblical scholars, not apologists, hence your comment is slightly unfair. On the other hand, you are probably right about there being an error in the text in Matthew 14:3!

More importantly, I find the 'logical jump' from factual errors in the text to labelling the whole text four gospels 'not historical' evidence of sloppy thinking. A historian would probably work with a more finely graded scale of reliability.

Love n Peace

[ebaltrace]

@revdolaf It's tough to work within the confines of 500 character answers. There are many other problem verses which demonstrate that the gospels are not historical. Matthew 4:8 Look! This mountain doesn't exist.

Ebal the Atheist

[revdolaf]

@ebaltrace: For a mountaineer, obviously not. For someone involved in a profound inner conflict regarding the meaning or purpose of his/her life, facing the choice of being authentic or superficial in life's choices, it does exist. But then only a naive literalist would go looking for this mountain in our physical universe.....

If by saying that the Gospels are not historical descriptions you mean that they are invented fables with no basis in reality I would disagree.

Love n Peace

[ebaltrace]

@revdolaf History is facts. Mountains that do not exist are not facts.

Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Can you move REAL mountains? Or do you move imaginary mountains?

It's not history. It's theology.

Ebal the Atheist

[Heick08]

seriously they dont read the church fathers and tend to overlook how information was passed down... they expect way way too much out of the gospels....they tend to read the christology of the gospels before reading or looking at the genuine letters of paul

[Heick08]

form criticism is so idealogical

[aerycksmusic]

I look forward to reading the book, thanks for giving us a foretaste. God bless.