tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post2747165544840555596..comments2024-03-28T00:15:57.372-07:00Comments on Christian Apologetics UK: Are the Gospels Based on Eyewitness Testimony? The Test of Personal Namesfailedatheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16176322877697068624noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-7330485699041361702017-01-11T18:35:16.114-08:002017-01-11T18:35:16.114-08:00According to preeminent conservative Christian New...According to preeminent conservative Christian New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chapter 5), the author of the Gospel of Matthew was not Matthew the Apostle, but an anonymous Christian author writing a Gospel based on accounts/stories which allegedly originated from the Apostle Matthew. Bauckham believes that this anonymous author knew that the Apostle Matthew was a tax collector, but, did not know the details of Matthew’s calling to be one of the Twelve; he did not know the story of how Jesus came to call upon Matthew to be one of his disciples.<br />Bauckham believes that the unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew very much wanted a story about the calling of Matthew for the Gospel he was writing; a gospel which he intended to attribute to…the Apostle Matthew (The Gospel “according to” Matthew) so this anonymous author decided to borrow a story about the calling of another tax collector, Levi, as found in the Gospel of Mark, and insert it into his gospel, creating the fictional calling of Matthew the tax collector and Apostle as found in Matthew chapter 9.<br />Yet…Bauckham has the audacity to repeatedly assure us in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that the “eyewitnesses” to the individual stories or vignettes in the Gospels served as “guardians” to the historical integrity of these stories, zealously protecting the historical accuracy of the stories down to the very day that the Evangelists wrote the stories in their Gospels, and, continuing to protect the accuracy of these stories as the Gospels circulated among the churches in the first century. To paraphrase Neil Godfrey of Vridar Blog on this topic (see his full comments here): Where were Bauckham’s ‘guardians of historical accuracy’ when the author of Matthew was concocting a fictional tall tale about Jesus’ calling of the Apostle Matthew???<br />Scandalous! Truly scandalous. If the laity of conservative Christian churches only knew how much wool is being pulled over their eyes!<br />The consensus of New Testament scholars regarding the non-eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is not biased as the LCMS authors of Making the Case for Christianity want us to believe! One only has to read the scholarship of conservative Christianity’s premier scholar, Richard Bauckham, to see just how correct the majority of scholars truly is! The four canonical Gospels of our Bibles are NOT reliable sources of historical information. Conservative Christian scholars and pastors need to stop their charade that the Gospels are “eyewitness testimony” and start telling their congregations the truth!<br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-82819428741938885202016-11-13T20:49:27.560-08:002016-11-13T20:49:27.560-08:00The majority of NT scholars, including NT Wright, ...The majority of NT scholars, including NT Wright, now say that the Gospels were most likely NOT written by eyewitnesses:<br /><br />https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/<br /><br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-39380257335073908352012-10-06T23:00:04.267-07:002012-10-06T23:00:04.267-07:00It doesn't, but It shows the authors were in t...It doesn't, but It shows the authors were in the same place at the same time. If this is true this is consistent with the authors being eyewitnesses. If this type of data was not consistent with what was known of the time fraud would be the most likely inference.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02563884595838898851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-83593996429039423462012-06-25T01:30:09.207-07:002012-06-25T01:30:09.207-07:00How does that demonstrate that the authors of the ...How does that demonstrate that the authors of the gospels actually met with and spoke to people who saw and knew Jesus?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791185252866892418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-42983593150386647732012-06-24T01:26:53.438-07:002012-06-24T01:26:53.438-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791185252866892418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3540071429816533590.post-9622394063152092542012-06-23T05:21:43.450-07:002012-06-23T05:21:43.450-07:00A fascinating new angle on an age-old problem, sad...A fascinating new angle on an age-old problem, sadly offered far too much air-time of late by current BBC so-called 'Bible-history' offerings from overtly liberal sources, including Bart Ehrman et al.davieboy21https://www.blogger.com/profile/06220588979395693523noreply@blogger.com