Bare Metal

Mike,

I don't think our argument is obscured at all. On the contrary, I think we've actually almost gotten all the way through the paint and primer and are starting to expose the bare metal that underlies your objections.

The video you linked to is certainly interesting, but ultimately it is not terribly helpful in supporting your position. The producers of this clip make a big deal of the divergences between the eye witness testimonies, but they say absolutely nothing of the intersections of their testimonies. I'd bet you a nickel that everybody in that class would agree that "Yes, a man walked into the class and stole the professor's purse"--the historicity of that event is without question.

The point is well taken that eye witnesses testimony is subject to human frailties, but this is precisely why we cross-examine eye witnesses--to find the common thread that stitches together the truth. This video leads one to believe that we can never discern the truth from eye witness testimonies, but even popular televisiion programs such as "America's Most Wanted" clearly demonstrate that corroborated eye witness testimony is absolutely invaluable and indeed necessary to come to the truth (this is, after all, why police departments employ sketch artists).

The video also fails to prove your point because of the drastic differences in the very nature of the events being compared. The purse snatcher was in that classroom for about 10 seconds and in that short time frame he created a mild emotional "trauma" (for want of a better word) in the students as evidenced by their cry of outrage that went out when the 'perp' grabbed the purse. This is hardly equivalent to events that transpired over the three year earthly ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

History comes to us reliably through, among other things, reliable eye witness accounts (which is not an oxymoron as you seem to be asserting). If eye witness accounts were always unreliable (which really is what you are arguing when you discount such testimony out of hand), we'd have no hope of ever knowing anything about the past apart from what our shovels might unearth. Using your standard of historical "proof," I defy you to prove to me that Washington crossed the Delaware River on December 25, 1776; that Abraham Lincoln really signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; that Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes booth in Ford Theater or any other event that took place in the days before photography and that itself did not leave physcial scars or remnants behind. You are attempting to (in)validate history using the scientific method (or more precisely, by empirical means), which is utterly fallacious--historical events are not directly observable, measurable or repeatable--they're also not always tangible. To properly analyze historical events, one must use the aptly named "historical method." Relying upon the scientific method on historical events is like trying to overhaul an engine using only a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Now, regarding the authorship of the four Gospels. That Mark penned his Gospel first is fairly well understood, but your assertion that none of them were eyewitnesses is completely without merit.

Matthew (a.k.a. Levi the tax collector) was one of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) and he is also enumerated among the 11 in Acts 1:13.

Mark, it seems, was indeed heavily influenced by Peter, who was an excellent primary source for his writings. Primary sources are crucial in the construction of an accurate historical record. But to presume that he was not an eyewitness to the accounts himself assumes too much. Jesus had more than 12 disciples (Luke 6:17), so just because Mark was not one of the 12 doesn't mean he wasn't there. Additionally, it is commonly held that Mark was referring to himself in Mark 14:51,52 as the young man who was with Jesus when the latter was arrested in Gethsemane.

Luke, the gentile "beloved physicician" was perhaps not an eyewitness to all events, but Luke tells us up front in the first few verses of his Gospel that he set out to write an orderly account of Jesus' life using primary sources. He was also Paul's traveling companion, so he got to see and experience first-hand what Paul was up to during his ministry. Luke's acumen as an historian is widely attested, so I see no reason to belabor this point.

Your assertion that the Gospel of John is not penned by him also appears to be without any real basis in reality. There are very good reasons to believe that the author John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find those reasons and interact with them on his own.

So I suppose if I wanted to be ultra precise, I would have to say that "The Bible was written by eye witnesses or by companions of eye witnesses..." but even with the insertion of of this new clause, the weight of the statement still stands--we still have these records written during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses which is also why your argument about the accounts being penned "decades after the events took place" doesn't really hold any water. Are you willing to admit that you cannot accurately recall events that took place when you were a boy? If your parents are still alive, ask them if they have lived through anything that they can "remember like it happened yesterday."

The New Testament is the single most well attested work of ancient literature extant, period. It has more document support (in terms of the number of MSS and MS fragments--well over 5,000) and some of these fragments date, as you noted, to within a couple of decades from the originals. Compare this with any other work of antiquity, where a dozen copies that date to within several hundred years is considered "really good." Again, this is a very well documented fact, so I see no reason to drone on about it here.

That's all I have time for right now...gotta get ready for work.

Until next time...

-dan