Gospel Evidence: Eyewitness Testimony or Anonymous Tips?

[NAO]

Gospel Evidence: Eyewitness Testimony or Anonymous Tips?

Christian Apologists are constantly referring to stories in the Canonical Gospels as "Eyewitness Testimony". They compile evidence and argue that Jesus rose from the dead (they just assume the gospel protagonist is an historical personage as a starting point) based on the "witnesses" provided in the Gospels.

But are these documents - assuming that they are even intended to be historical accounts and not merely literary allegories - really "eyewitness accounts"? Is the evidence they provide admissible?

No. In order for evidence to be admissible, the "witness" has to testify. Anonymous tips suggest areas to investigate, but they do not in and of themselves consist of evidence.

Nobody knows who wrote the gospels. They are truly anonymous. Some books of the New Testament are written pseudonymously (e.g. the Pastoral Epistles claim to be written by Paul but they are clearly not) but the Gospel writers did not even put a fake name on their literary creations. They are just unsigned. The traditional attributions were not assigned until the last quarter of the second century.

In fact, nobody seems to know about these narratives until at least the middle of the second century. Justin Martyr, writing in 150 CE cites, "memoirs of the apostles" but his quotes are not very close to the Canonical Gospels. He does not know that there are four; he does not attribute any specific authorship.

The first person to call out the four, and the first Christian writer who seems to have a copy, is Ireanaeus in about 180 CE. That's 150 years after the supposed events. In all those years no Christians seem to have any of the Gospels. Now Christians will tell you that they had them, but there is no literary evidence that they existed prior to the second half of the second century. And there is plenty of literary evidence from Christian writers before that - just none citing or knowing of the Gospels.

****
****

excerpt from "Jesus Never Existed" website:

Christian Apologetics - Fundamentally Flawed
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/circus.html

The supposed 'evidence' of Jesus's existence can fill many pages...

Believe it or not, in a jaw-dropping departure from logical thinking, the Apologists' prime source of 'proof' for the existence of their storybook hero is the storybook itself. The Bible is given the special privilege of confirming its own truth. In the language of religious deceit, the Bible is held to be "unique" and "historically reliable". It's true because it says it's true. Handy, that. (So handy, in fact, that Muhammad used the same "logic" in the Koran).

With the whole compendium of biblical half-truths, fantasy and garbled history defined as "historical evidence", vast numbers of "witnesses" to the Jesus superhero can be mustered. Other characters in the fable give testimony for the existence of the holy carpenter. This is rather like 'proving' the existence of Batman by quoting the words of Robin the Boy Wonder.

The parade of flimflam and clownish knockabout would be a cause for merriment and laughter were it not for the sobering thought that this is as 'rational' as some Christians get. Heaven help us if they were ever to take over the government.

In the prelude to the Dark Ages the original Christian Apologists engaged in a similar pseudo-rational debate with the Greek philosophers, who at first ignored the Christians and subsequently lampooned them as fools. But within three generations the fanatics of Christ had taken over the Roman Empire and the laughing stopped...

[Lerkfish]

1. "christian apologists"?

er...does that make it ok to refer to some as "atheist apologists"?

This OP is pure flamebait.

[Evoman]

12. Um...apologists isn't a bad word.

It basically just means "a systematic defender of a position". Many christian apologists CALL THEMSELVES apologists. This is not flame-bait at all....you don't think that discussing the anonymous nature of the gospels, as well as the fact that they are most definitely not eye witness accounts, is a worthy topic?

WTF? Seriously....what isn't flame bait to you.

[Lerkfish]

13. "flamebait" was not in reference to "apologists" but the rest of the post

Believe it or not, in a jaw-dropping departure from logical thinking, the Apologists' prime source of 'proof' for the existence of their storybook hero is the storybook itself. The Bible is given the special privilege of confirming its own truth. In the language of religious deceit, the Bible is held to be "unique" and "historically reliable". It's true because it says it's true. Handy, that. (So handy, in fact, that Muhammad used the same "logic" in the Koran).

With the whole compendium of biblical half-truths, fantasy and garbled history defined as "historical evidence", vast numbers of "witnesses" to the Jesus superhero can be mustered. Other characters in the fable give testimony for the existence of the holy carpenter. This is rather like 'proving' the existence of Batman by quoting the words of Robin the Boy Wonder.

The parade of flimflam and clownish knockaboutwould be a cause for merriment and laughter were it not for the sobering thought that this is as 'rational' as some Christians get. Heaven help us if they were ever to take over the government.

In the prelude to the Dark Ages the original Christian Apologists engaged in a similar pseudo-rational debate with the Greek philosophers, who at first ignored the Christians and subsequently lampooned them as fools. But within three generations the fanatics of Christ had taken over the Roman Empire and the laughing stopped...

I found this condescending, derisive and intentional flamebait.

do you find it differently?

[Evoman]

15. Yes, I find it differently

The poster was very nice. His excerpt (which he did not write by the way), was a little harsh, but its not uncommon to see a harsh commentary of some sort posted on DU. It starts discussions. So far the discussion has been civil.

If you didn't find the apologists part to be the problem, why did you do this: "christian apologists?" Not only that, if it was flame bait,you actually kinda tried to add fire to the flames with the "atheist apologist" bit. It was unecessary, since atheism was not part of the discussion...do we even know for a fact that the OP is an atheist (I would, like you, assume he is, but you never know). If you want to bag on atheists, feel free to start a new discussion..its cool. We could talk about how atheists have accepted the atheist bible, even though its only an eyewitness accounts of their being no god.....oh, wait.

[Lerkfish]

16. then we disagree

and I think DU rules agrees with me:

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not. If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs, or if you take pleasure from offending or ridiculing people with different beliefs, or if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior, do not participate in religious discussions on Democratic Underground.

however, I hope we both learn something from the last sentence. I will allow I need to take to heart "If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs"

and I believe the OP needs to take to heart "if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior"

[saltpoint]

2. The Gospels were victims of interpolations, very likely.

And they are not "parallel" and sometimes flatly disagree.

"Eyewitness" is really stretching it.

[WildClarySage]

3. Does it matter?

90% of the "christians" I know don't seem to have anything to do with what the gospels say Christ was about.

[SPKrazy]

4. Fffffffffffllllllllll aaaaaaaaammmmmmmm eeeeeeeeeeeee

bait?

[NAO]

7. Fffffffffff aaaaaaa ccccccc ttttttttttttttttttt uuuuuuuu aaaaaa llllllllll

historical material.

Provacative? Possibly. But unlike the Gospels, it is FACTUAL!

[Lerkfish]

14. read post #13

[okasha]

17. If you think the twaddle on jesusneverexisted is factual

then--Psssst! Wanna buy a nice used bridge in very good condition?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. And this is big news to whom? Why are...

apologists of other stripes constantly trying to prove the innate fallacies of Christianity through the obvious and well-known contradictions? Are the Upanishads and Vedas too much work for them to debunk Hinduism?

Yes, there are a few people who seem to think that every word in the King James Bible was put there directly by the hand of God, but they are misguided and don't represent the bulk of Biblical scholarship.

No one denies that the authorship of the books of the present Bible is unknown, and even going back to the ancient Hebrews authorship was assigned, not proven. Ask a Rabbi just who it was who knew Job or Jonah and wrote the tales down, or who was witness at the creation. Just who was Moses' chronicler? The answers are very interesting.

The present Bible is a continuum, not a history text or science lesson. It isn't even a theological treatise. It is a collection of folk tales, beliefs, mythology, and tradition that has been winnowed down to what generations of Jewish and Christian scholars believe contains the essence of God's contract with humanity.

Much of is contradictory and doesn't make sense without commentary and context. To the sophisticated believer, those contradictions aren't proof, or even evidence, of falsehood, but starting points for paths of inquiry.

There is nothing wrong with nonbelief. In fact one of the marks of the truly spiritual person is a crisis of faith and denying all of this as a crock, and then finding a path that works.

There is, though, something fishy about a nonbeliever constantly trying to prove us wrong. What is the point of rehashing these things we've been going over for 2,000 years?

[Zhade]

19. Well, Hinduism isn't trying to control this country.

Christianity - specifically, the rightwing fundamentalist subsection of it - is.

Kinda more influential than Hinduism, don't you think?

[saltpoint]

6. I'd argue that the Gospels are invaluable documents because they

provide a context for contemplation and art.

If you subtract the Bible generally from those two undertakings, a great part of the world you're left with is a barren wasteland, in the West especially.

[NAO]

8. Tell it to Hellenistic Civilization...destroyed by Christian fanatics....

and replaced by 1,000 years of Dark Ages.

****

"Illuminating the terrifying history of a morbid cult that destroyed the ancient world: Raised to the status of State religion the Christian Church reigned over the destruction of civilization. As the centuries passed religious barbarism grew ever more vicious."

Winter of the World – The Terrible Cost of "Christendom"
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html

[saltpoint]

9. Put down the way-too-broad brush and we'll talk.

Co-opt is the right verb, probably in more cases than not. "Stole" also works, but Julian did the best he could. I'm a member of the Julian Society, by the way.

I don't sweep Christian atrocities under the rug. Witch-burning, for example. Appalling. I'm with you as far as it goes, but then there is St. Francis. Give me him instead of Martin Luther. Give me Julian (again) over Constantine.

I don't see it as a light-switch event from one to the other, but a multi-layered and wildly complex series of struggles and changes.

Of which contemplation and the arts are the chief beneficiaries.

[NAO]

10. How about Theodosius and Justinian (Alexandria and Athens)

My brush is no broader than the Christians' torch was wide.

Kudos to Julian for his heroic attempt to save the world. But his kind, intelligent, and just attempt to re-establish a tolerant paganism frightened the miserable, morose, and power-hungry Christians and provoked a reaction from which the human race would not recover for 12 centuries.

The Christian Theodosius made Christianity mandatory, and declared that anyone who was not a Christian was insane. He ordered the wholesale burning of libraries and the destruction of architecture and began a spree of murder and destruction that would not be sated until Western Civilization was destroyed. In my city there is a Catholic Church called "St. Cyril" - as in the thug who presided over the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria and the burning of the Serapium - a real "Saint" indeed!

Not to be outdone, in 529 CE the Christian Justinian closed the Philosophic Academy of Athens that had been established by Plato. In one stroke, the Light of the World was extinguished, and the Dark Ages had began.

Christianity - Putting the Dark in Dark Ages
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm

[saltpoint]

11. All sides use broad brushes. Sometimes the Christians did, not others.

If I prefer Julian I acknowledge that Constantine prevailed. Gore Vidal and I might hope paganism would rise again but in this era the white-hot Protestant fundies rule the land.

Catholicism is shrinking, in fact.

Fundy Protestants flood the jungles of Central and South America.

Yet neo-pagan and wiccan (etc.) traditions are being reclaimed and their numbers are growing, too.

It's not a lightswitch.

[Zhade]

18. Eyewitless testimony, perhaps.

I'm sorry, to me it's just absurd to think that a self-interested book of myths should be believed without independent corroborating evidence.

(But believers are still entitled to their beliefs, of course. I just don't share in them.)