There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Brian2]

So, when you look to Luke 1.1 as evidence of a tradition grounded on eyewitness testimony, you are arguably relying on

1. an anonymous Gentile author
2. writing primarily to a Gentile audience
3. decades after the storied life of Jesus,
4. an apologist who is making an ambiguous claim*
5. in a verse that some believe to be a later anti-Marcionite addition.

(* the reference to unnamed but presumed folk - people he does not even claim to have met - who were presumably "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" seems exceedingly poor evidence.)

There are always going to be arguments of the late writing and alternative authorship. And the opinions of people opposed to the traditions of the Church will always be picked up on by others opposed to those traditions and used as if they were facts.
Iranaeus of Lyons and the Muratorian Canon seem late attestations to the authorship of the gospels but there were plenty of quotes from writings earlier than that, which show what New Testament books were known and used.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Ignatius

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

www.ntcanon.org

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Polycarp

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

www.ntcanon.org

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Marcion

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

www.ntcanon.org

Even Paul is said to have quoted from the gospel of Luke and alluded to it as authoritative/scripture (1Tim 5:18)
So there is plenty of evidence of an early writing for Luke's gospel and there is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke.
Was it necessary for the early Christians, who probably knew the authors, to add an attestation to that at the start of the gospels. It seems it could have become necessary in the latter half of the 2nd century before that knowledge died out.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, because once again, NOBODY HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERNATURAL ANYTHING.

Therefore, you can't posit it as an explanation for anything. It's not in the running until you can show it actually exists in the first place.
It doesn't provide one iota of explanatory power either.

I've been explaining this to you for years, at this point. And here you are just repeating the same thing you've been saying since Day 1.

Maybe it is because you are a skeptic thinker that you cannot see that the experiences of people in life and in history can be evidence for the supernatural.

 

[1213]

Mark was the first written (as was first noted by German textual critics at the end of the 18th century). At Mark 13:2 Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem, meaning Mark was written after 70 CE. (The author of Matthew copies Mark but specifies the Temple (Matthew 24:2). Mark's trial scene before Pilate is modeled on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem in The Jewish Wars, Bk 6 Ch. 5.3. Wars was not available until 75 CE, so Mark was not written earlier.

So there are two good reasons for you.

Sorry, baseless speculation doesn't work for me. More likely Josephus' account was modeled on Mark's text.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, baseless speculation doesn't work for me. More likely Josephus' account was modeled on Mark's text.

I gave you two clear dating points for Mark. They don't qualify as "baseless speculation", they qualify as evidence. Any historian would consider them as good evidence.

In reply, you've offered zero actual evidence for any earlier date for Mark.

It looks like 'baseless speculation' is more your style.

 

[oldbadger]

I've gone when requested to appear for jury duty. I spoke to the judge about the reason why it would not be to the benefit of the court to put me on a jury. He dismissed me and actually praised me for my honesty. That was the last time I went before the judge. Before that another judge got rancorous and dismissed me in a harsh way. But he dismissed me. The last time I appeared I rephrased my presentation to the judge as to why it would not be fruitful to put me on the jury. It was a different judge anyway.

Good for you.
People who don't want to take part in Jury duties really should not be forced to take part.

 

[Sumadji]

Sorry, baseless speculation doesn't work for me. More likely Josephus' account was modeled on Mark's text.

It's unlikely that Josephus read Mark. It's more likely that Josephus picked up on the story and reported a garbled version, whereas the writer of Mark's Gospel, as a person closely involved with the life and death of Jesus, is the one who got it right, or closer to the truth

Try this >Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com<.

I've saved it to read later. But Carrier clutches onto any straws to try to support his mythicist theory that Jesus did not exist, and he isn't greatly respected by some other Bible scholars.

 

[Brian2]

I gave you two clear dating points for Mark. They don't qualify as "baseless speculation", they qualify as evidence. Any historian would consider them as good evidence.

In reply, you've offered zero actual evidence for any earlier date for Mark.

It looks like 'baseless speculation' is more your style.

How could it be anything but speculation to say that Mark copied from Josephus and that the supernatural is not true so Mark must have been written after 70AD? There is no external evidence, just the claims and the speculation about the supernatural, which is baseless speculation.
As for evidence that Mark was written before 70AD: The same author wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts, and Acts came after the gospel of Luke.
Acts has nothing about the destruction of the Temple or the death of Peter and/or Paul so Acts was written before 70AD.
The gospel of Luke, which came before Acts, gets material from Mark it seems, so Mark was written before 70AD.

 

[blü 2]

It's unlikely that Josephus read Mark. It's more likely that Josephus picked up on the story and reported a garbled version, whereas the writer of Mark's Gospel, as a person closely involved with the life and death of Jesus, is the one who got it right, or closer to the truth

Josephus (Wars 6 5:3) was reporting on the trial of a different Jesus, Jesus son of Ananias aka Jesus of Jerusalem. The author of Mark, as a comparison of the texts will show, didn't literally copy what Josephus wrote, but used Josephus' account as his model for his trial scene of Jesus with Pilate.

As far as I'm aware, the point was first made by theologian Ted Weeden (2003). He sets out 24 points of similarity.

Of course in Mark's story, Pilate and Jesus are alone. Given a historical Jesus, that's very unlikely, as is any according of special status to him, since in history he would have been arrested as a troublemaker, very briefly tried, and executed as one ─ it was part of the routine of empire.

Or looking at it from the point of view of Mark's author, well, if Pilate and Jesus were alone, there was no record of what was said or who said it, so resorting to Josephus for a model was one way forward. The important thing is that Wars didn't become available till 75 CE.

 

[Sumadji]

How could it be anything but speculation to say that Mark copied from Josephus and that the supernatural is not true so Mark must have been written after 70AD? There is no external evidence, just the claims and the speculation about the supernatural, which is baseless speculation.
As for evidence that Mark was written before 70AD: The same author wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts, and Acts came after the gospel of Luke.
Acts has nothing about the destruction of the Temple or the death of Peter and/or Paul so Acts was written before 70AD.
The gospel of Luke, which came before Acts, gets material from Mark it seems, so Mark was written before 70AD.

Of course the possibility exists that the destruction of the temple was a later interpolation. That may make more sense, considering the prophecy that Jesus would return while some of his listeners were still alive.

Either way, it doesn't conclusively date the Gospel of Mark

 

[Sumadji]

As far as I'm aware, the point was first made by theologian Ted Weeden (2003). He sets out 24 points of similarity.

That only says there was a story going around that Josephus picked up on. It does not show that Mark picked up on Josephus.

Of course in Mark's story, Pilate and Jesus are alone. Given a historical Jesus, that's very unlikely, as is any according of special status to him, since in history he would have been arrested as a troublemaker, very briefly tried, and executed as one ─ it was part of the routine of empire.

The NT account puts a different slant on it, that the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus out of the way and coerced Pilate into unwillingly ordering the execution of a man he considered to be innocent, in order to keep the peace in Judea at a difficult time there for Rome, when revolution was brewing.

Or looking at it from the point of view of Mark's author, well, if Pilate and Jesus were alone, there was no record of what was said or who said it, so resorting to Josephus for a model was one way forward.

All the speculation about how anyone knew what Pilate and Jesus said to one another in private is not definitive. These things always leak. It's a stretch to link Mark's account to Josephus on that basis

 

[blü 2]

How could it be anything but speculation to say that Mark copied from Josephus and that the supernatural is not true so Mark must have been written after 70AD? There is no external evidence, just the claims and the speculation about the supernatural, which is baseless speculation.

There is not a single authenticated example of the supernatural in reality. There is no theory that I'm aware of as to how the supernatural actually might work in reality.

If I believed in miracles, danged certain I'd be advocating for programs to explore, describe and effect magic so that we humans could have the benefits of it. However, no church that I'm aware of has any such program. Why not? Is it that somewhere deep down all believers know that part is only a story?

The only way in which the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. That includes prophesies, of course. Its purpose appears to be to enhance Jesus' status as principal figure of Mark's story.

As for evidence that Mark was written before 70AD: The same author wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts, and Acts came after the gospel of Luke.

Some of the letters attributed to Paul excepted, we have no idea who wrote anything in the NT. The apparent attributions 'Mark', 'Matthew', 'Luke', 'John' &c are all conventional titles, not actual attributions. Whoever wrote Luke and whoever wrote Acts, whether they were the same person, or mostly the same person, or not, we have no idea who they were.

Acts has nothing about the destruction of the Temple or the death of Peter and/or Paul so Acts was written before 70AD.
The gospel of Luke, which came before Acts, gets material from Mark it seems, so Mark was written before 70AD.

From the evidence I've mentioned, Mark was plainly written after 70 CE and plainly written in or after 75 CE.

 

[blü 2]

That only says there was a story going around that Josephus picked up on. It does not show that Mark picked up on Josephus.
The NT account puts a different slant on it, that the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus out of the way and coerced Pilate into unwillingly ordering the execution of a man he considered to be innocent, in order to keep the peace in Judea at a difficult time there for Rome, when revolution was brewing.

Given there ever was such a conversation, which seems highly unlikely, the author of Mark had no way of knowing what was said. But that didn't stop him, of course.

All the speculation about how anyone knew what Pilate and Jesus said to one another in private is not definitive. These things always leak. It's a stretch to link Mark's account to Josephus on that basis

As I said, given there ever was such a meeting at all, the author of Mark couldn't have known anything about what was said. But it would make sense for him to have some kind of a picture, a template, of how such a trial might go, and there was an account of one in Josephus. He didn't just borrow the procedure, he borrowed aspects of the central figure's behavior as well.

 

[Sumadji]

He didn't just borrow the procedure, he borrowed aspects of the central figure's behavior as well.

Both Mark and Josephus reported a story. Josephus was a busy writer who just slotted in a sketch of the story of an innocent 'prophet' who remained silent when beaten, whereas the writer of Mark was closer to the Jesus movement and wrote down a more careful account, closer to the truth than Josephus who, as mentioned in post #554, in the same chapter also wrote: "For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." And: "At the same festival also an heifer, as she was led by the High-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb, in the midst of the temple."

Carrier is always looking for the angle, imo

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Iranaeus of Lyons and the Muratorian Canon seem late attestations to the authorship of the gospels but there were plenty of quotes from writings earlier than that, which show what New Testament books were known and used.

There were, indeed, late, "quotes from writings earlier than that, which show what New Testament books were known and used," but this is not as all same as quotes from writings which are (a) confirmed to by significantly earlier than that, and (b) serve as substantive evidence of eyewitness testimony. So, for example, you offer ...

Even Paul is said to have quoted from the gospel of Luke and alluded to it as authoritative/scripture (1Tim 5:18)

You will not be surprised to read ...

The authorship of First Timothy was traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, although in pre-Nicene Christianity this attribution was open to dispute.[4] He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but of an unidentified Christian writing some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries.[5] Most scholars now affirm this view.[6][7] [source]​

As for Luke:

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[9] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[25] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century [source]​

That a pseudepigraphic work written "some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries" might have quoted an "80–90 AD" Luke is evidence for very little.

Parenthetically, 1 Tim 5.18-19 reads:

18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” and “The laborer deserves to be paid.” 19 Never accept any accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (NRSV)​

I'd appreciate learning what from the gospel of Luke is being quoted and where in this gospel of Luke it is found, because 1 Tim 5.18 appears to reference Deut 25.4 while, similarly, 1 Tim 5.19 appears to reference Deut 19.15.

 

[Brian2]

There is not a single authenticated example of the supernatural in reality. There is no theory that I'm aware of as to how the supernatural actually might work in reality.

It's not as if there is nobody who claims to have have supernatural experience. You however want authentication, as if a person should be able to repeat the experience with scientists testing and observing.
But science and nobody knows anything about spirits or how to test for them. If it knew that then there would be no need for testing, the existence of spirits would have been shown already by tests.

If I believed in miracles, danged certain I'd be advocating for programs to explore, describe and effect magic so that we humans could have the benefits of it. However, no church that I'm aware of has any such program. Why not? Is it that somewhere deep down all believers know that part is only a story?

No, it is that believers realise that all the huffing and puffing by atheists about needing scientific proof for the supernatural is illogical.

The only way in which the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. That includes prophesies, of course. Its purpose appears to be to enhance Jesus' status as principal figure of Mark's story.

Even prophecies which history has shown to have been true are dismissed by non believers who prefer to demand more proof and to make up reasons that the prophecies did not happen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, any fictional reason being more acceptable than witnesses to the fulfilment of prophecy it seems.

Some of the letters attributed to Paul excepted, we have no idea who wrote anything in the NT. The apparent attributions 'Mark', 'Matthew', 'Luke', 'John' &c are all conventional titles, not actual attributions. Whoever wrote Luke and whoever wrote Acts, whether they were the same person, or mostly the same person, or not, we have no idea who they were.

And I suppose you are not prepared to accept that the early church knew who wrote the gospels for some reason.

From the evidence I've mentioned, Mark was plainly written after 70 CE and plainly written in or after 75 CE.

You have presented no evidence. All you have done is to state that sceptics (and that includes modern historians) believe that the supernatural is not true and so Mark must have been written after 70 AD.

 

[blü 2]

Both Mark and Josephus reported a story. Josephus was a busy writer who just slotted in a sketch of the story of an innocent 'prophet' who remained silent when beaten, whereas the writer of Mark was closer to the Jesus movement and wrote down a more careful account, closer to the truth than Josephus who, as mentioned in post #554, in the same chapter also wrote: "For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." And: "At the same festival also an heifer, as she was led by the High-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb, in the midst of the temple."

Carrier is always looking for the angle, imo

Josephus' report is the model by which the author of Mark devised his scene ─ and therefore he didn't write Mark earlier than 75 CE when Wars became available.

That's a fair historiographical view of Mark,

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe it is because you are a skeptic thinker that you cannot see that the experiences of people in life and in history can be evidence for the supernatural.

The clear and specific definition of "evidence" eliminates the possibility of considering personal testimony of the supernatural and the miraculous as evidence justifying claims.

The problem extends to the rejection of science based ancient mythical texts with miraculous and supernatural claims of the history of our physical existence, the earth and humanity. These ancient views are illogical and irrational to the extreme.

Equating science with atheism is the biggest smelliest Red Herring on the hot summer boardwalk.

 

[blü 2]

It's not as if there is nobody who claims to have have supernatural experience. You however want authentication, as if a person should be able to repeat the experience with scientists testing and observing.

My point is that they're mental phenomena. They don't take place in the world external to the self.

But science and nobody knows anything about spirits or how to test for them. If it knew that then there would be no need for testing, the existence of spirits would have been shown already by tests.

Science explores and describes reality and finds no spirits there. Simple as that.

No, it is that believers realise that all the huffing and puffing by atheists about needing scientific proof for the supernatural is illogical.

Then address your problem, which, as I said, is that the only manner in which supernatural entities are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. They aren't found out there in reality. That's why there are no photographs, videos, interviews, no place in Linnaean taxonomy for them.

Even prophecies which history has shown to have been true are dismissed by non believers who prefer to demand more proof and to make up reasons that the prophecies did not happen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, any fictional reason being more acceptable than witnesses to the fulfilment of prophecy it seems.

To be credible, a prophesy would need to be a precise prediction, unambiguously stated and credibly recorded at the time of its making, which comes true in a clearly and credibly recorded manner so close to that predicted and so unlikely, that a supernatural explanation seems more credible than simply by chance, or by faking, or by devising. There are no real examples.

And I suppose you are not prepared to accept that the early church knew who wrote the gospels for some reason.

We don't find names on the gospels till 200 CE or later. According to credible historians I've read, around that time the names were assigned by convention, not by knowledge.

You have presented no evidence. All you have done is to state that sceptics (and that includes modern historians) believe that the supernatural is not true and so Mark must have been written after 70 AD.

Then your task should be easy ─ just lay on a satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural for them and me.

But that's always been the case, and yet nothing happens and nothing happens and nothing happens. It's not as if you'd lack an audience for your demonstration either. It would attract honest and impartial attention from seriously expert authorities.

 

[Brian2]

There were, indeed, late, "quotes from writings earlier than that, which show what New Testament books were known and used," but this is not as all same as quotes from writings which are (a) confirmed to by significantly earlier than that, and (b) serve as substantive evidence of eyewitness testimony. So, for example, you offer ...

You will not be surprised to read ...

The authorship of First Timothy was traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, although in pre-Nicene Christianity this attribution was open to dispute.[4] He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but of an unidentified Christian writing some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries.[5] Most scholars now affirm this view.[6][7] [source]​

As for Luke:

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[9] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[25] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century [source]​

That a pseudepigraphic work written "some time in the late-first to mid-second centuries" might have quoted an "80–90 AD" Luke is evidence for very little.

There is no "proof" of the authorship of the gospels but there is enough evidence in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church for that traditional authors and that the early church knew who they were.
It seems that for you the views of modern historians are enough to convince you or anything.

Parenthetically, 1 Tim 5.18-19 reads:

18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” and “The laborer deserves to be paid.” 19 Never accept any accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (NRSV)​

I'd appreciate learning what from the gospel of Luke is being quoted and where in this gospel of Luke it is found, because 1 Tim 5.18 appears to reference Deut 25.4 while, similarly, 1 Tim 5.19 appears to reference Deut 19.15.

1Tim 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Josephus' report is the model by which the author of Mark devised his scene ─ and therefore he didn't write Mark earlier than 75 CE when Wars became available.

"It is a fact" and "Carrier say so" are two significantly different claims.