They aren’t even written as eyewitness accounts.
What about the scholarly efforts of believers, Mark?
I would add that relying on the circular reasoning of those who reject scholarly efforts, while making no effort to explain ambiguities and contradictions, is not the path to truth.
Indeed. And the remedy for cringing in embarrassment at the fact would certainly lie in the direction of simply admitting the fact. Denying it only makes further cringing inevitable.
Just like evolution has a consilience of multiple lines of evidence for it, there is a consilience of multiple lines of evidence against eyewitness authorship of the gospels.
Specifically;
One - the synoptic gospels are called synoptic for a reason - Matthew and Luke are known to have copied Mark, based on evidence such as editorial fatigue. Why would an eyewitness need to copy virtually verbatim, another gospel?
Keep in mind that Mark itself does not record the Risen Jesus and the Resurrection. If Luke and Matthew copied Mark, and made errors due to editorial fatigue, how trustworthy are they?
Secondly - when were the gospels written?
Numismatic evidence is strong evidence that the gospels were written after 70AD, and the “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is anachronistic - the coin of Jesus’ day was the Tyrian shekel, and taxes were paid in goods, not coin. Taxation in coinage was implemented after 70AD. (Fabian Udoh, Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine, p235).
For example, a coin hoard discovered at Isfiya, which contained coins dating from 40 BCE-53 CE, contained 4,400 Tyrian coins compared to only 160 denarii, of which about 30 were of Tiberius.
This makes Matthew, a supposed tax collector, as author of Matthew unlikely.
Thirdly, Geography also makes one doubt the gospel writers knew what they were talking about.
For example, geography made Porphyry doubt the gospels back in the 3rd century; Porphyry knew that the “sea” of Galilee was a tiny lake, not a sea - nobody else called it a sea, and did not take that long to get across - a lake somehow Jesus and the disciples were on for hours and hours.
Fourthly, the current gospels do not match what Christian elders wrote about them in the past;
Papias, a church elder, described the gospel of Mark as a sayings gospel, in no particular order
The Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these matters.”[iii]
This is NOT describing our current gospel of Mark, which is not a set of teachings/sayings, and IS in chronological order.
TL;DR - Matthew and Luke copied Mark (thus they are called the Synoptic gospels). Mark is not the original Mark described by Papias. The current gospel of Mark and therefore the other synoptic gospels Luke and Matthew was likely written after 70AD based on numismatic, geographical, and early church documented evidence.
If you are seeking to prove that the bible is false and that God does not exist, you will most certainly succeed. You will die not knowing Him.
If you are seeking the truth in Jesus Christ, humbly asking God for revelation in repentance, you will find Him.
I am certain of both of these statements.
To the contrary: nobody can “prove” those things. The fact that the gospels are not authored by eyewitnesses surely does not do so.
If a person is satisfied with letting confirmation bias carry the day, sure. If instead a person seeks to believe things that are true, evaluates evidence along the way, and waits to ask things of Jesus, of God, or of any other paranormal being until he has first established the existence and relevance of each, the results are liable not to accord with your experience.
And yet, certainty is still subjective.
That was my point…it is personal.
Sounds like an argument a Muslim or Mormon or insert x religion could and have made.
The Muslims, Mormons I had chats with were certain their position and religion was correct.
What makes you correct over them?
In a world with suicide bombers, antivaxxers, covid conspiracists, gay conversion therapists, false beliefs have very real world consequences.
Aeon.co has a great article outlining why we have a moral responsibility to not believe without evidence -
But that’s not consistent with your dichotomous judgment of others:
I’ll ask again: can believers be scholars who conclude that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?
Just to be clear, I cringe because the argument of authorship is irrelevant. Peter and John were with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry and address the issue in their letters.
2 Peter 1:16-21 - 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such a [j]declaration as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory: “This is [k]My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this [l]declaration made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all , that no prophecy of Scripture [m]becomes a matter of [n] someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
1 John 1:1-4 - What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
Whether or not they recorded the truth consistent with today’s academic standard or not is a silly argument to make. Thousands of people over thousands of years wrote the bible, which means God wrote it.
I have no interest in arguing for arguments sake. Believe what you like. Muslims and Mormons believe in God. Where we differ is in faith in Jesus. I have that faith and there is really no argument you can make that will take that from me. I have zero moral responsibility to prove my faith, nor do I have any responsibility to present evidence of the validity of my faith to anyone. I will enjoy eternal life by faith in Jesus, if anyone wishes to find the same salvation, I’m here to help. If you are not interested, that is fine by me.
I have judged no one.
Sure. I see it as a moot point.
Really?
Please explain how I have judged anyone by stating that truth in scripture is veiled to unbelievers. It is not my opinion or judgment, it is scripture:
2 Cor 4:2-4 - 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor [a]handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, but that statement is miles away from the two judgments you made–in a single sentence, no less!
The scare quotes are a blatant judgment. Your attribution of the consensus dating of the Gospels to “non-believers” instead of addressing the evidence is a judgment too.
I’m sorry, but you are reading a lot into what is not there. Not sure how using quotation marks is translated to judgment…that’s all in your interpretation. I don’t really understand your other point either. It seems as if you just want to attribute judgment to me because I affirm Jesus and scripture? I don’t get it.
No, that means that thousands of people over thousands of years wrote the bible. In my own field, the law, the entire corpus of the law was written by many more uncountable thousands of people – lawyers, judges, commentators, legislators, administrators of all shapes and sizes. This does not mean that it was written by Baal or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it just means that it was, indeed, written by a heck of a lot of people.
What precisely did you mean by putting “scholarly” within quotes, then?
No, I’m simply pointing out that you are being very obviously judgmental.
I put scholarly in quotes because it is an ambiguous term, easily assigned to anyone that engages in study. There is no qualification other than being a student, but people put a lot of emphasis on “scholarly consensus”…which in reality means nothing other than what someone has been taught in school. It is relative to the individual and their culture.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what it means to be judgmental. For me it has a tone of condemnation, which I can assure you is not my posture. If the statement “the sky is blue” is judgmental to you, then yes, I was judgmental pointing out what I believe to be truth. However, I don’t tell others what they should and should not believe, or what they should or should not do. This is a forum for discussion, disagreement is not judgment.
You were judging the conclusions regarding dating of the Gospels as not scholarly.
Mark, one can be completely judgmental without condemnation. For example, I can judge OJ to be innocent of murder. That’s the opposite of condemnation!
Your two judgments in a single sentence had nothing to do with telling anyone what they should believe or do:
So then, would it be fair to say that all these people have a general understanding of the spirit of the law and the purpose that it serves? Or are the laws a random selection of moral codes that have no connection and no general theme?
I’ll skip ahead…my former wife was an attorney and I am familiar with how laws are developed in our culture. Many laws need to be interpreted and examined. When there is no clear direction a judge is tasked with considering the “spirit” of the law, which breeds an amendment or a new law or an exception that can be used in other trials. Over time, the law that develops is a fairly accurate picture of moral agreement and the “spirit” of man.
The bible is the same, but it is in regard to the “Spirit of God” and has a much longer history, to the point where we no longer believe what was written thousands of years ago. Our current society thinks that the law is now more relevant and important, so there is a shift away from God and toward the knowledge and pursuits of men. Bible authors consulted the Holy Spirit, and the writing is confirmed by the Holy Spirit in believers today…which is hard for unbelievers to understand. Personally, I thought it was all a bunch of garbage until the day I found God.