The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses (debate #2)

Introduction I thank Gileandos for participating with me in this challenge. I will adapt my introductory arguments in favor of my position from the previous debate. The Christian tradition has it that all four gospels were either first-hand or second-hand sources. Two of the gospel authors were reputedly first-hand accounts--disciples of Jesus (Matthew and John), and the other two were reputedly second-hand accounts--close associates of the disciples (Mark and Luke), not necessarily direct associates of Jesus (though potentially so). On the other hand, I share the belief generally held among modern "critical" scholars, which is the position that the authors were neither eyewitnesses nor direct associates of the eyewitnesses, neither first-hand nor second-hand accounts, but they all sourced from a tradition of myth, traced back to the historical Jesus only through a long line of myth (or “tradition”) [1]. There are many reasons for this position, and I list five of the reasons as follows: 1. The problem of language and education 2. The problem of lack of self-referencing 3. The problem of miracles 4. The synoptic problem 5. The problem of literary seams of John Each of these five problems is a problem for the traditional hypothesis, but they each find a solution in the hypothesis that the gospels were sourced from Christian myths. I describe each problem in detail below. 1. The problem of language and education We know from the gospels that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic as their primary language (see Mark 5:41, 7:34, 11:9, 14:36, 15:34, Matthew 5:18, 5:22, 27:6, 27:46 and more). The canonical gospels, on the other hand, are written exclusively in the language of fluent [1] speakers of Koine Greek. Since Jesus and his disciples were uneducated and untrained (Acts 4:13) rural Galileans (i.e. Mark 14:70), it is unlikely (and unevidenced) that they spoke Greek as a second language. The critical hypothesis expects this evidence, because we know that Christianity became most popular primarily among Greek speakers, not Aramaic speakers, in the first century and onward, as the remainder of the canon and the writings of the 2nd-century church fathers are composed in that language. I would like to know how Con explains this problem. For example, one apologetic proposal is that the gospel authors spent many years of their lives learning Greek before writing the gospels. Another apologetic hypothesis holds that it was very common for Greek to be spoken as a second-language even among the uneducated fishermen in rural Galilee. For any proposed solution, Con should show its probability, not just its possibility. 2. The problem of lack of self-referencing It has always been a well-known problem that the gospel authors do not identify themselves by name in their own writings. The earliest evidence of attribution of the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the respective gospels are in an ambiguous part of the second century (Papias via Eusebius). But, the problem goes well beyond the lack of self-naming. If the gospels were eyewitness accounts, then we would expect that, at least occasionally, the author identifies or alludes to his own role in the narrative, such as by writing with a singular first-person pronoun ("I" or "me"). For example, we strongly expect the author to sometimes write something like "Jesus said to me..." This consistency of the gospel style of narration is not expected of an eyewitness account. However, it is strongly expected of ancient Greco-Roman biographies that are sourced from myths, such as those of Plutarch, Suetonius and Tacitus. Such authors were not part of the narrative, so the lack of first-person pronouns is fully expected. To be fair, the book of Acts is thought by critical scholars to be written by the same author as the gospel of Luke, and, though it does not use a singular first person pronoun ("I" or "me"), it does make plentiful use of plural first person pronouns ("we" and "us"), in addition to plural third-person pronouns (“they” and “them”). With no "I" or “we” in Luke but both "we" and “they” many times in Acts, it is a problem that demands a solution, and the best solution seems be that "we" is the vestige of the author of Acts sourcing from a written itinerary of the journey of Paul [2]. This source would indeed be an eyewitness account. Unfortunately, neither Acts nor this speculated source concerns the life of Jesus, and the resolution stands. 3. The problem of miracles The gospels contain many attestations to miracles and other unlikely attestations to suit the interests of Christian authors and their audience, but miracles are simply not expected of eyewitness accounts. However, they are expected of myths. For example, the ancient accounts of Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, and Pythagorus all contained miracles and were all sourced from myths, not eyewitnesses. This argument is not merely an argument from personal incredulity, but it is based on the patterns of history and the modern age. 4. The synoptic problem The “synoptic problem” is the problem that the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke share their textual content very heavily with each other. The solution to this problem (based on the specific clues of the patterns of commonalities) is that the gospels of Matthew and Luke each used prior written sources: the gospels of Mark and Q (the gospel of “Q” is now lost). This solution is a strong difficulty for the hypothesis of eyewitness sourcing, because ancient eyewitnesses seemingly never had to use prior written attestations to compose their own first-hand accounts. Neither Hannibal nor Pliny nor Suetonius nor Marcus Aurelius nor Horace nor Caesar nor Cicero nor Juvenal nor the Apostle Paul nor any other confirmed eyewitness author ever used prior written sources to borrow the old text for his own new account. It would be greatly unexpected, because it simply would not be necessary. It is, however, expected of myth. For example, per the well-established Documentary Hypothesis, it is almost universally accepted among Old Testament scholars that the non-eyewitness myths contained in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers each sourced from prior written texts [3]. 5. The problem of literary seams of John "John" is reputed by tradition to be a core disciple, but this author, too, very seemingly sourced from prior written texts, weaving at least three different texts together into one account. Among the many solid arguments for this, the strongest is the presence of many apparent "literary seams." Since the details of the argument would be lengthy, I will leave out the details. If Con strongly objects to this claim, then I can describe the argument in a later round. Otherwise, the arguments are described on pages 164-166 of reference [1]. Conclusion There are many other solid arguments for the non-eyewitness mythical sourcing of the gospels (such as the serious contradictions, the problem of the dialogue with Pilate, and the evolving theological perspectives of the gospels). But, the five listed arguments alone, described in this round in detail, provide a sufficiently strong case against the hypothesis of direct eyewitness sourcing of the gospels, in favor of the hypothesis of sourcing from myths. If Con would prefer to focus heavily on only a subset of these arguments, of his own choosing, let's say only two of these arguments instead of all five, then that will be acceptable to me, and I hope the voters will be equally generous. I have strong confidence in all five arguments, and I am willing to grant Con the advantage. Modern References [1] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd edition, 2004, pp. 58-59. [2] Martin Dibelius, "The Acts of the Apostles as an Historical Source," in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 1956, p. 104. [3] Richard E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 1987.