Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony in the Gospels?
Do we have eyewitness testimony in the gospels?
“Even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence. The books were written anonymously and evidently not by eyewitnesses”—Bart D. Ehrman
The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, nor did they include any eyewitness testimony, so says the popular agnostic Bible scholar, who has quite a following. While such claims were rare prior to the 1800’s, they have been increasing, and ever more so in recent times.
How do you know you were born? Yes, you’re alive now, and you’ve been told everyone is born. Superman is supposed to be from the planet Krypton. Maybe that’s how you arrived on earth. Such an idea has about as much credibility as Ehrman’s claims.
Do you remember being born? True, your parents said you were, hospital staff said you were. How do you know they’re not lying? How about your birth certificate? Documents have been known to be falsified.
How about photos said to be taken on the day you were born? How do you know that’s you? Photos can be doctored.
The point is that by using the same standard Ehrman is using regarding the Gospels, you can’t prove that any event from the distant past occurred. However, each witness testimony increases the probability that certain events did occur. And the most valuable testimony comes from eyewitnesses–from people present when the past event occurred.
There are several articles on this website that discuss the evidence for the eyewitness testimony in the New Testament.
Gospel writer Luke says that he used eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-3). Gospel writer John says he himself was an eyewitness to many things he recorded. “The one who saw this is an eyewitness” (John 19:35 GWT). “This disciple was an eyewitness of these things and wrote them down” (John 21:24 GWT). The Muratorian Fragment of about 160-170 CE confirms these two claims by Luke and John.
The apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-32). Many early church writers identified Matthew as the writer of the first gospel. Papias of Hierapolis in the early 2nd century said that Gospel writer Mark recorded the apostle Peter’s eyewitness testimony (1 Peter 5:13), and that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name. A few years later, Irenaus of Lyons linked each of the four gospels to an eyewitness of Jesus Christ. In the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr referred to a quote from Mark 3:16,17 as “the recollections of Peter.”
“He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”—1 Corinthians 15:6 NIV
Paul wrote to the Corinthians over twenty years after Jesus’ death. By this this time, Matthew may have been written, and Luke would be written within the next few years. Most scholars admit that the four Gospels were written between 40 and 100 CE, which is well within the lifetime eyewitnesses of Jesus. There is more than sufficient testimony that the Gospel writers used eyewitnesses as sources available for anyone who wishes to check. There are many articles about this subject on the internet, as well as some on this site, to view. On this site, put the word “eyewitness” in the search bar, and several articles will appear.
The proven eyewitness testimony in the four Gospels are more evidence of the Bible’s authenticity as the infallible word of God (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Peter 1:24,25).
5 thoughts on “Do We Have Eyewitness Testimony in the Gospels?”
BA: Can We Be Sure We Have Eyewitness Testimony in the Gospels?
GW: No, we can’t be sure. In fact we can be quite confident that we don’t have testimony of eyewitnesses of Jesus.
BDE: “Even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence. The books were written anonymously and evidently not by eyewitnesses”—Bart D. Ehrman
GW: I believe that Ehrman is correct here.
BA: So says the popular agnostic Bible scholar, who has quite a following. While such claims were rare prior to the 1800’s, they have been increasing, and ever more so in recent times.
GW: Yes, before the 1800s scholars were disparaged or even persecuted if they doubted the face value of what was written in the Bible. Fortunately, times have changed and now scholars are able to speak freely in their Biblical criticism.
BA: How do you know you were born? Yes, you’re alive now, and you’ve been told everyone is born. Superman is supposed to be from the planet Krypton. Maybe that’s how you arrived on earth. Such an idea has about as much credibility as Ehrman’s claims.
GW: How do I know I was born? I talked to eyewitnesses of my birth, you know, like my mother and father. Also, I have an official birth certificate stating my name, the name of my parents, and when and where I was born. I even have photographs of myself as a baby, close to the date of my birth. I even have my footprints, taken on the date of my birth. I have seen the birth of my own daughter. She is a human being. I am a human being, so it is likely that I went through a similar process of birth as she did. The evidence that I was born is so overwhelming that I can accurately say that I have knowledge of it, in the classic sense of “true justified belief.” We have no comparable evidence for the birth of Jesus.
GW: We know that Superman is a fictional character, like God.
BA: Do you remember being born? True, your parents said you were, hospital staff said you were. How do you know they’re not lying? How about your birth certificate? Documents have been known to be falsified.
GW: There is no good evidence that human beings remember events in their own lives occurring before they were two years of age. (Jesus would have been no different.) I am confident that my parents and hospital staff have told the truth about my birth. Why? Because they have a long record of telling me the truth. They have made claims to me that I was able to verify for myself. What would be the alternative to my being born? Being produced in a laboratory? Being given to my parents by aliens from another planet? Being delivered by a stork? More probable than any of these alternative hypotheses is that I was born. More probable than the outlandish hypothesis that Jesus came back to life is the idea that one or two disciples had grief hallucinations of him.
BA: How about photos said to be taken on the day you were born? How do you know that’s you? Photos can be doctored.
GW: Yes, and stories of Jesus can be fabricated. It’s all about the evidence and the probabilities.
BA: The point is that by using the same standard Ehrman is using regarding the Gospels, you can’t prove that any event from the distant past occurred.
GW: You can’t tell what standard Ehrman is using from that short quote. You would need to read some of his books or watch some of his YouTube lectures or debates to apprehend the standard.
GW: It appears that you are using the wrong definition of “proof” for this context. What does it mean to prove that any event in the past occurred? It means to present overwhelming evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in support of the hypothesis that the specific event occurred. It is similar to what occurs in a criminal trial. It is not like proving 2 + 2 = 4. And it’s not like yourself observing the event. And it’s not like getting into a machine which takes you back in time. (If God did exist, could he, would he, and should he present to us a holographic movie of what happened to Jesus near the end of his life? Ponder that.)
BA: However, each witness testimony increases the probability that certain events did occur. And the most valuable testimony comes from eyewitnesses–from people present when the past event occurred.
GW: What is the type and quantity of evidence we should have to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific event in the distant past occurred? As I have said before, the best evidence consists of the three Rs – Reports, Recordings, and Remnants, and they must be sufficient in quality and quantity. Of course, we do not have this with respect to the life of Jesus.
BA: There are several articles on this website that discuss the evidence for the eyewitness testimony in the New Testament.
GW: I have read many of those articles and they do not come close to proving that the Gospels are first-person, author-identified, low-bias, promptly-written, eyewitness reports of any event in the life of Jesus or its aftermath. The gold standard is at least three such reports which match well in their major details, i.e. which are corroborating. Matthew says that the saints came out of their graves and paraded about Jerusalem, but the other Gospel authors make no mention of this, even though this is a major detail. No corroboration here. John says that a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with his spear, but the other Gospel authors make no mention of this, even though this is a major detail. No corroboration here. There are dozens of details like this in the Gospels. There are even contradictions in the Gospel stories, some of which we have discussed.
BA: Gospel writer Luke says that he used eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-3).
GW: Ah hah! So Luke himself was not an eyewitness! If Luke used any eyewitnesses, who were they? He doesn’t say. What did they report? He doesn’t quote them. Were there any discrepancies in these supposed reports? Most likely there were, but he doesn’t tell us what they were. Luke’s Gospel is not good evidence for any event in the life of Jesus.
BA: Gospel writer John says he himself was an eyewitness to many things he recorded (John 19:35; 21:24).
GW: Every person is an eyewitness to some events. What event of Jesus’ time was John an eyewitness to? Probably none. You don’t know. We can’t tell from his writing.
BA: The Muratorian Fragment of about 160-170 CE confirms these two claims by Luke and John.
GW: Prove it. How could it confirm the claims when it comes from 160-170 CE? Jesus lived sometime in the period 4 BCE to 33 CE. Please present to me a single document written about Jesus by a claimed eyewitness which is dated to the period of 4 BCE to 33 CE. You won’t. You can’t. Nobody can. Nobody has.
BA: The apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-32).
GW: You don’t know and can’t know that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was an apostle or an eyewitness to any event involving Jesus. You are just telling us what you wish were true, not what the evidence supports. He just tells us a story. He doesn’t say: “My name is Matthew. I lived in Capernaum from 10 CE to 27 CE. I worked as a tax collector. I was recruited by Jesus to be part of his traveling ministry from 27 to 30 CE. I was with Jesus for three years. I am going to report here exactly what Jesus said and did, i.e. what I heard him say and what I saw him do! When I observed something, I quickly took notes the same day or the next day. I will even tell you who else observed what I observed, and you can go question them to confirm my report.” We have nothing like this from any of the four Gospel writers.
BA: Many early church writers identified Matthew as the writer of the first gospel. Papias of Hierapolis in the early 2nd century said that Gospel writer Mark recorded the apostle Peter’s eyewitness testimony (1 Peter 5:13), and that the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name. A few years later, Irenaus of Lyons linked each of the four gospels to an eyewitness of Jesus Christ. In the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr referred to a quote from Mark 3:16,17 as “the recollections of Peter.”
GW: I have read some of the writings of these authors and they are really poor. They do not give sufficient details to confirm their claims. They wrote in the second century, not in the first century when the Gospel writers probably wrote. Their claims are not credible.
BA: “He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep”—1 Corinthians 15:6 NIV
GW: Of all the claims made about Jesus in the NT, this one is the one least likely to be true. Surely it is a fabrication. Who were these 500 people? The author does not tell us. Where are the eyewitness reports from them? We have none. We can disregard this story about the 500. Either Paul was lying or spreading an unconfirmed rumor.
BA: Paul wrote to the Corinthians over twenty years after Jesus’ death.
GW: Ah hah! Paul never observed Jesus!
BA: By this this time, Matthew may have been written, and Luke would be written within the next few years.
GW: False. Most scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel, written about 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. The other Gospels were written later, but all probably before 110 CE.
BA: Most scholars admit that the four Gospels were written between 40 and 100 CE, which is well within the lifetime eyewitnesses of Jesus.
GW: False again. Most scholars conclude that the four Gospels were written between 60 and 110 CE and that none of the writers was an eyewitness of Jesus. The best thing you could do is to read every book ever written by Bart Ehrman.
BA: There is more than sufficient testimony that the Gospel writers used eyewitnesses as sources available for anyone who wishes to check.
GW: No, there isn’t! Who were the eyewitnesses they supposedly used? They don’t name them. What did the eyewitnesses supposedly say to the Gospel writers? The authors don’t quote them. This is neither sufficient nor adequate evidence.
BA: There are many articles about this subject on the internet, as well as some on this site, to view. On this site, put the word “witness” in the search bar, and several articles will appear.
GW: So what? I’ve seen nothing elsewhere any better than what you have presented here, and what you’ve presented here is inadequate to prove any alleged event regarding Jesus, and certainly any alleged miracle, like a coming back to life.
BA: The proven eyewitness accounts in the four Gospels are more evidence of the Bible’s authenticity as the infallible word of God (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Peter 1:24,25).
GW: You have failed to prove that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. That’s what you wish to be true, but the evidence does not support your wish or claim. Nobody should believe you about this. Also, we know that God does not exist. This has been proven by many arguments, including my Holocaust argument in which you have found no errors and which you continue to evade. If God does not exist, then all your talk about an alleged resurrection of Jesus is nonsense and futile.
The problem for you is that God does exist,!
Despite consistent testimony of Christian writers throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries, Ehrman flatly denies that the NT could have been written by eyewitnesses, but he admits that the NT was written during the lifetime of some of the eyewitnesses of Jesus:
“[The Gospels] were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death . . . not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people who were living later . . . after the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith”—“Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” (March 28, 2006), a debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig
Today, about 80 years after WWII, there are still eyewitnesses alive to report what they observed. While most people didn’t live that long in the 1st century, some did live into their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.
The gospels circulated with consistent oral traditions about their writers.
It’s quite a stretch for Ehrman to claim, without qualification, that the gospels were written, not by people who were, but by people living later.”
Even if the gospels didn’t begin to circulate until 30-40 years after Jesus, it is certainly possible that eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive.
BA: The problem for you is that God does exist,!
GW: False. God does not exist, and this has been proven by many arguments, including my own Holocaust argument in which you have found no errors.
BA: Despite consistent testimony of Christian writers throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries, Ehrman flatly denies that the NT could have been written by eyewitnesses, but he admits that the NT was written during the lifetime of some of the eyewitnesses of Jesus:
GW: There aren’t any Christian writers of the 1st and 2nd centuries who have presented any reports of their interviews with any eyewitnesses of Jesus, identified them, or quoted them.
BE: “[The Gospels] were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death . . . not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people who were living later . . . after the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith”—“Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” (March 28, 2006), a debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig
GW: That’s sounds like a correct quote of Ehrman. It’s consistent with what I have been telling you over and over again: There is not a single first-person, author-identified, low-biased, promptly-written eyewitness report of anything in the life of Jesus or its immediate aftermath. ZERO! ZILCH!
GW: To substantiate any miracle you should never trust stories which were claimed to be the result of a chain of communication which began with eyewitnesses. That’s just insufficient evidence. Would you trust that with an alien abduction story? No, probably not. I wouldn’t.
BA: Today, about 80 years after WWII, there are still eyewitnesses alive to report what they observed.
GW: Yes, that is correct. We should give them much more credibility than you give the Gospel stories.
BA: While most people didn’t live that long in the 1st century, some did live into their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.
GW: I said that most people in the 1st century didn’t live past 45 years, but I just heard Ehrman say 40. Please present good evidence that a person in the first century lived to be 70, 80, or 90. Then do the same for any person who might have met or observed Jesus. You won’t. You can’t.
BA: The gospels circulated with consistent oral traditions about their writers.
GW: You can’t possibly know this. Notice that all four Gospels have the same form of title: “The Gospel According to _____.” This is a sure sign that each title was not written by the author himself but by a later editor. If the titles were written by the authors themselves, then the titles would all have different form and content.
BA: It’s quite a stretch for Ehrman to claim, without qualification, that the gospels were written, not by people who were, but by people living later.
GW: No, it’s not a stretch at all. It is the consensus of NT scholars, including Ehrman, that the authors of the Gospels are anonymous. That means we don’t know who wrote them and thus we do not know that they were eyewitnesses of Jesus. You already have admitted that the authors of the Luke and Mark Gospels were not eyewitnesses. Were the Gospels written in the first person? Almost not at all. Did the authors identify themselves? No. Were the Gospels low bias? Definitely not. They were not written by journalists or historians. They were written by religious proselytizers. Were they promptly written after the events they purportedly describe? Absolutely not! They were written 30-80 years after the life of Jesus. Were they written by eyewitnesses? No, the evidence does not support that hypothesis. The Gospels weren’t even written in the language of Jesus. The Gospels are not the kind or quantity of evidence necessary to substantiate any miracle.
BA: Even if the gospels didn’t begin to circulate until 30-40 years after Jesus, it is certainly possible that eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive.
GW: Circulate? No. At least the Gospel of John had not even been written by that time. Probably Mark is the only Gospel which was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70. At least you are becoming more modest in your claims, which is a step in the right direction. It is possible, but very unlikely that eyewitnesses to Jesus were still alive 30-40 years after Jesus. But we have no confirmed reports of any eyewitnesses.
Actually, there are many, many variations of the titles of the four gospels in the early Greek manuscripts. However, one fact is 100% consistent, they assign writership to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
BA: Actually, there are many, many variations of the titles of the four gospels in the early Greek manuscripts. However, one fact is 100% consistent, they assign writership to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
GW: You tend to make all kinds of outlandish claims and I have learned not to trust you. So, once again, present quotations, citations, and links to support this particular claim about titles.
GW: If there are variations in the titles, then this is another sign that the titles were NOT written by the authors themselves! Thank you for supporting my point. Within the texts of the books, the authors do not identify themselves. Whoever assigned the titles we now have doesn’t identify himself and doesn’t justify his assignment of the titles. Even if the titles do correctly point to the authors, still we don’t have any good evidence that these authors ever knew Jesus, met Jesus, or observed Jesus. Since they wrote in Greek, they probably couldn’t understand Jesus’ language even if they did observe him.
GW: The bottom line is that the stories of the Gospels are not sufficient to warrant the inference of any miracle, especially the alleged miracle of Jesus coming back to life. “14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” 1 Cor 15:14 NIV Sorry, but your faith is useless.