Confirmations of the New Testament

[Teallaura]

True, and I could also write a book about unicorns or ufo's 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony from people that lived at that time. I'll bet you wouldn't believe it though.

You wanna take this topic to the debate forum?

[JonathanL]

True, and I could also write a book about unicorns or ufo's 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony from people that lived at that time. I'll bet you wouldn't believe it though.

Could we perhaps focus on whether or not Rossum is correct about the gospels telling us that parts of the events they described are from third-hand sources (hint: he is not) and then after that issue is beaten to death we can move on to the question of whether eyewitness testimony itself is sufficient to justify a belief in something extraordinary?

[JimL]

Precisely. I could now write a book about WWII over 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony like from my father and a couples of uncles as well as neighbors I knew growing up.

True, and I could also write a book about unicorns or ufo's 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony from people that lived at that time. I'll bet you wouldn't believe it though.

[Teallaura]

Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.

Pretty sure Mary would have known the story - and she was clearly around after the Crucifixion.

[rogue06]

Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.

Precisely. I could now write a book about WWII over 70 years later that relies on eyewitness testimony like from my father and a couples of uncles as well as neighbors I knew growing up.

[JonathanL]

The Gospels themselves say that none of the evangelists were present at the birth of Jesus or during His early life. Parts of the Gospels are therefore third hand and not written by eyewitnesses, the Gospels themselves tell us this.

Not written by eyewitnesses does not mean they didn't have access to eyewitness testimony however. And, no, the Gospels themselves most certainly do not tell us that the parts of the gospels that describe Jesus' birth and early life is third hand information. You're just unable (or unwilling) to conceive that there are ways that the gospel writers could have incorporated eyewitness testimony for the early parts of Jesus' life even if they themselves weren't present to experience it.

[lee_merrill]

The Arabic translators of literature outside Judaism do not share that concern, and it is unlikely that they necessarily even knew the source of the documents.

References, please?

I consider this unlikely, and most historians agree.

Examples of historians?

It still remains that all the references to Jesus Christ are late including Josephus at the time of the Jewish Revolt and later.

Suetonius: 69-122 AD
Tacitus: 56-120 AD

I wouldn't call these late!

Claiming the gospels were written or based on eyewitness accounts remains speculation. The historical accuracy of facts, people, and events is universally normal for ancient writings in virtually all cultures without considering them based directly on eye witness accounts.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Lk 1:1–4)

"For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16)

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." (1 Jn 1:1–3)

And people claiming to be eyewitnesses, when their claim could be verified, is evidence that indeed they testified of what they had seen and heard.

Claims of contemporaneous eye witness accounts of the miraculous life of Buddha are lacking.

Yes, which makes it seem more likely that these claims of miracles are fabrications.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Just like Jesus we have nothing written by the Buddha. In ancient India, writing was considered a worldly tool for merchants, and not to be used for sacred texts. Those texts were instead memorized and passed on from monk to monk. The early texts (the suttas in the Pali canon) are extremely repetitious for this reason. There are also many numbered lists for the same reason: The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path etc. One whole section of scripture contains nothing but these lists.

Those texts were only written down about 400 years later. Different schools wrote slightly different versions, so we have a reasonable idea of what the originals were like.

Jain scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Buddha, just as Buddhist scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Jain Mahavira -- their lives overlapped. As you say, the Buddha was a real person, as was the Mahavira.

I believe that I stated, 'May in part be attributed to Buddha,' and not necessarily written by him. One correction I should have said, 'writings of Buddhism,' and 'writings of Buddha.'

[rossum]

As with other ancient religions like Buddhism the religious and miraculous claims attributed to Buddha are separate from the actual historical evidence based on archaeology, historical references, and the writings of Buddha. As with Jesus Christ Buddha is considered a real person in history, and his writing may be at least in part attributed to Buddha. Claims of contemporaneous eye witness accounts of the miraculous life of Buddha are lacking.

Just like Jesus we have nothing written by the Buddha. In ancient India, writing was considered a worldly tool for merchants, and not to be used for sacred texts. Those texts were instead memorized and passed on from monk to monk. The early texts (the suttas in the Pali canon) are extremely repetitious for this reason. There are also many numbered lists for the same reason: The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path etc. One whole section of scripture contains nothing but these lists.

Those texts were only written down about 400 years later. Different schools wrote slightly different versions, so we have a reasonable idea of what the originals were like.

Jain scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Buddha, just as Buddhist scriptures contain contemporary mentions of the Jain Mahavira -- their lives overlapped. As you say, the Buddha was a real person, as was the Mahavira.

[shunyadragon]

Well, the lateness of a copy doesn't imply the copyists were not careful. The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the Jewish copyists were careful indeed.

The fact that copies from different sources differ in key aspects do imdicat alteration and additions over time. The Hebrew culture at the time of the Dead Sea scrolls were concerned about accuracy within Judaism. The Arabic translators of literature outside Judaism do not share that concern, and it is unlikely that they necessarily even knew the source of the documents. When it came to their own traditional literature and the Quran they were meticulously accurate like the copyists of the Dead Sea scrolls.

So his could have been second-hand testimony.

I consider this unlikely, and most historians agree.

I think one or two references cite Jesus as inciting rebellion, another (the Talmud) says he practiced sorcery. But there is varied evidence that the NT is authentic history, written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses. Not third-hand testimony, as you and Rossum have claimed.

As far as being consistent with Roman Law, and history the crucifiction of Jesus Christ is more consistent with the penalty for rebellion against Rome. It still remains that all the references to Jesus Christ are late including Josephus at the time of the Jewish Revolt and later. There is a conflict in the two references by Josephus concerning Jesus Christ. The first, which better reflects Josephus's beliefs and sentiments call Jesus, a 'so-called Christ (prophet?)' is more in line with the reference that is believed to be added by Christian copiests.

Claiming the gospels were written or based on eyewitness accounts remains speculation. The historical accuracy of facts, people, and events is universally normal for ancient writings in virtually all cultures without considering them based directly on eye witness accounts. The religious claims and miraculous life of Jesus is considered the history of the religion, and not factual history supported by archaeological evidence nor ancient writings from outside the religion. The first gospel was likely a simpler biography (Q?) that evolved into later gospels as the current gospels appear to be evolved as the evidence indicates. Much of what you claim in terms of the life of Jesus is the reason by far most historians consider Jesus Christ a real person in history, but do not consider the gospels to be written nor based on first hand eye witnesses. A simpler early biography like Q may have been, but that too is speculation, but it is consistent with other ancient literature in history.

As with other ancient religions like Buddhism the religious and miraculous claims attributed to Buddha are separate from the actual historical evidence based on archaeology, historical references, and the writings of Buddha. As with Jesus Christ Buddha is considered a real person in history, and his writing may be at least in part attributed to Buddha. Claims of contemporaneous eye witness accounts of the miraculous life of Buddha are lacking.

[lee_merrill]

No because the Arabic version is also very late with no originals of Josephus's writings.

Well, the lateness of a copy doesn't imply the copyists were not careful. The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the Jewish copyists were careful indeed.

Simply none including Josephus (born 36.37 AD) had and was writing past the life span of any possible witnessing at the time of Jesus's life.

So his could have been second-hand testimony.

Most historians generally accept that Jesus Christ was a real person, and live approximately the time that the Bible describes, and he was convicted for inciting rebellion against Rome and claiming to be the King of the Jews, had a following in Palestine and crucified under Roman Law,

I think one or two references cite Jesus as inciting rebellion, another (the Talmud) says he practiced sorcery. But there is varied evidence that the NT is authentic history, written by eyewitnesses or those who had access to eyewitnesses. Not third-hand testimony, as you and Rossum have claimed.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

What about the Arabic version that was cited in the video? That might clear up the confusion.

No because the Arabic version is also very late with no originals of Josephus's writings.

What evidence do you have that these accounts are third hand, though? Josephus died about 100 CE, for instance.

Simply none including Josephus (born 36.37 AD) had and was writing past the life span of any possible witnessing at the time of Jesus's life. The other writers were even later.

Most historians generally accept that Jesus Christ was a real person, and live approximately the time that the Bible describes, and he was convicted for inciting rebellion against Rome and claiming to be the King of the Jews, had a following in Palestine and crucified under Roman Law,

[rossum]

There is also no objective verifiable evidence that any of the gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses.

The Gospels themselves say that none of the evangelists were present at the birth of Jesus or during His early life. Parts of the Gospels are therefore third hand and not written by eyewitnesses, the Gospels themselves tell us this.

[lee_merrill]

We have no originals of Josephus's works.

What about the Arabic version that was cited in the video? That might clear up the confusion.

The argument in the video is that the third hand accounts provided by the historians and others are evidence for the gospels being written as first hand eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus …

What evidence do you have that these accounts are third hand, though? Josephus died about 100 CE, for instance.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

No, they were written about a generation later. There is also no objective verifiable evidence that any of the gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses.

Arguing from the negative is not a coherent argument. It is up to the one proposing an argument to provide the evidence.

Get back to me when you can set a reasonable standard for evidence (and accurately portray what you're citing, while you're at it). Yours tosses out nearly all of recorded history.

No, history is not dependent on the necessity of the claim of eyewitness and ancient histories vary in their accuracies, and historians have no problem with this, it is acknowledges that history is a work in progress in progress. The provenance of historical accuracy depends on corresponding archaeological, available written records most often not eyewitness accounts. The claim in this thread is that there are first hand eyewitnesses that wrote the gospels.