Do the Gospel stories faithfully fall within what the relevant witnesses say?
Rather than deviating from what the relevant eyewitnesses themselves were saying, did the Jesus biography recorded in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) essentially fit and align with their testimony on Jesus’s deeds and sayings? Did all (or virtually all) the Gospel stories originate with or closely echo the testimony of relevant witnesses, where a relevant eyewitness for any given event would be one that was present to observe the truth of the matter?
• Martin Hengel: “[i]n the Synoptics, the overall impact of Jesus upon the tradition was remarkably maintained. This was possible because the tradition was at first secured by many witnesses.” [“Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels” in The Written Gospel, ed. Bockmuehl & Hagner (Cambridge, 2005), 76.]
- • Richard Bauckham: “This correspondence is very unlikely to have resulted from addition of names to the traditions, even within Palestinian Jewish Christianity, and could not possibly have resulted from the addition of names to the traditions outside Jewish Palestine, since the pattern of Jewish name usage in the Diaspora was very different. The usages of the Gospels also correspond closely to the variety of ways in which persons bearing the same very popular names could be distinguished in Palestinian Jewish usage. Again these features of the New Testament data would be difficult to explain as the result of random invention of names within Palestinian Jewish Christianity and impossible to explain as the result of such invention outside Jewish Palestine. All the evidence indicates the general authenticity of the personal names in the Gospels.” [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans, 2008), 84.]
The popularity of Jewish names in 1st century Palestine match that of Jewish names in the New Testament.
• AD 30 Palestine’s commonest names are equally so in Gospels.
• AD 30 Palestine’s nine commonest names are equally so in Gospels.
• AD 30 Palestine’s rarer names are equally rare in Gospels.
• AD 30 Palestine’s Greek names (12%) are also ~12% in Gospels.
The gospel authors tended to ground their material in witness approval directly or nearly directly.
• Justin Martyr calls the gospels “memoirs.”
• The Gospels claimed to be from or use witnesses.
• 60+ year old events didn’t elude historians.
• In AD 70 witness-based Jesus facts pervaded Christendom.
• In general, AD 70 historiographers got witness-approval or close.
• E.g. Mk was judged as witness-based.
• The Gospel authors didn't lie-invent Jesus-bio.
• Gospel content is a subset of what witnesses say.
• Gospels were written because witnesses were dying.
But no... [All forthcoming]
• The Gospels in large part invented their Jesus-bio.
• The Gospels spew errors.
• Mk was not witness testimony nor close.
• Q was not based in witness testimony nor close.
• Stylized oral tradition can't be 1st hand memory.
The Gospel stories abound in direct or indirect witness testimony.
• Gospel stories spew undisputed accuracies.
• Gospel stories spew vivid realism (30+).
• Gospels spew complex internal coherences.
• Gospel stories are oft provably early.
• ECs swam in witness-based Jesus traditions.
• Gospel stories are a subset of what witnesses say.
The Gospel traditions originated honestly, rather than as lies or legends.
• Gospels spew confirmed non-legendary content.
• AD 30 Palestine’s name-ratios match the NT’s.
• Gospel characters behaviorally fit their character profile.
• Gospel stories lack hellenistic influence/motifs.
• The Gospels lack time-place absurdities.
• Gospels spew non-legendary content.
• Gospel stories are a subset of what witnesses said.
• Christian Jesus-biography wasn’t invented.
Most Jesus biography that was reported in the gospels faithfully falls within what the Jerusalem church was saying and circulating.
• Gospel Jesus-bio pre-dates the Gospels.
• Gospel-recorded events are multi-attested.
• ECs relayed the gospel’s Jesus-bio.
• Gospels relayed oral tradition (pre-markan).
• Gospels strove to be witness-warranted.
• Gospels are a subset of witness testimony.
But so what? Plausibly…
• The 1st church’s Jesus-bio wasn’t as subset of witnesses’
In general, popular Jesus-biography circulated by early Christians tended to fall faithfully within what relevant witnesses approved or said.
• Papias: “Jesus-witnesses xyz are still pop-teachers (in AD 80)”
• E.g. 1st church’s Jesus-bio was a subset of witness’s.
• Christians didn't lie-invent Jesus-bio stories.
• False Jesus-bio tended to be killed by witnesses.
• Christians swam in warranted Jesus-news.
• E.g. Gospel Jesus-bio is a subset of witness testimony.
The historical claims in the Gospels are usually or always historically accurate.
• Gospel Jesus-bio is a subset of what witnesses said.
• Gospel Jesus-bio spews uncoincidental accuracies.
• The Jesus-bio Christians used has a trend of accuracy.
• The Gospel/NT content seems honest.
• The Gospels strove to be accurate.
• Gospels were endorsed by good sources.
- Details are forthcoming, but for an example of one scholar drawing out the relevance:
• Stephen Patterson: “Moreover, he [Richard Bauckham] does not explain how Gospels shaped by a single authoritative body could present such widely divergent views of Jesus as one finds in John and the Synoptics. If both John and Mark relied on eyewitness testimony, one of the witnesses was very unreliable. This makes it doubtful that the Twelve, or any other body exercised the control Bauckham imagines.” [Can you Trust a Gospel? in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6(2) (2008): 200.]
The Gospels are regularly inaccurate; they are not historically relaible.
• The Gospels spew verified inaccuracies.1
Many/most Gospel accounts are in fact dishonest fabrications—created lies drawn up from human minds.
The Gospels were meant to be read as fictional histories (i.e. myths), not as literal truths.