Did Eyewitnesses Write the Gospels? | Discussion with Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh 

I’m very impressed that you’re engaging with these top notch scholars at such a young age. You’re crushing it, Nahoa! Keep it up!

Why not see the NT authors as a part of a very long tradition of Jewish literature, both biblical and otherwise, rather than a Greco-Roman tradition. In the Jewish tradition the point of the prophets was to speak to the spiritual and social issues of their day, and often harshly. (Same as Jesus.) They spoke and wrote (Yes, they could actually write) in language that is very like Jesus, full of tropes and parables, and they wrote sometimes rather cryptically. They wrote for and to the Jewish community not the world beyond. (Same as the authors of the Gospels.) They spoke and wrote with a very educated styles and in a variety of genres: short stories, poetry, history, hero stories, prophecy, etc. (They wrote some of the most beautiful literature that comes from the ancient world. Just not Psalm 1 or 23.) They even wrote at times anonymously. (Yup. Just like the Gospel writers.) To see the Gospel writers departing from the long Jewish tradition to pick up a Greco-Roman tradition, seems both a stretch and unnecessary. To see them writing to a community of the elite and literate and not the common people is also unnecessary. Jewish people were accustomed to hearing rather than reading. They were good at it. The Gospels were designed to make remembering easier. Chiasms, parables, short pithy statements, proverbs, and stories with plots. We see all these things in the Gospels. Doesn't it seem that they were written intentionally with hearers and not the elite literate in mind? But they were written in Greek for Greek speakers, were they not? Yes, and no. The church remained in the time of the writing of the Gospels a mixture of Jews and Greeks (See Romans.) And the church adopted the synagogue style of meeting and education. It was not an openly public gathering. It was so "secret" that Pliny (c. 112 AD) would have to inquire of its adherents to find out what was going on. These were decidedly not the elite, btw. I think that Ms. Walsh has been misled in following the trail of the "elite" and educated audience for the Gospels.

49:50 I’ve definitely noticed that Robyn’s a fantastic public communicator, always very down to earth and makes these concepts approachable!

Just watched, very impressed, subscribed... will watch more! Great content...

Some initial thoughts: - her methodology seems to erase distinctions between an historical core and religious elements but that is still a scholarly approach and you can't discount it by pointing out the religious elements. - a lot of the things Dr. Walsh describes are compatible with traditional account such as Mark incorporating stoic philosophy into his writings after interacting with Paul - Atlantis is a great example because it is not at all obvious that Plato was trying to describe a real society or ancient city. That is precisely why genre analysis is important. The distinctions between genres may not have existed in the mind of every author engaging in that genre but the distinctions still exist

Much obliged.

We are conflating two different questions: One is the question of authorship, as judging by the skillfulness of the writing, and the other is the question of whether or not they are based on eyewitness testimony. There could be professional writers crafting pieces of literature together on the basis of the eyewitness testimonies and under the influence of Matthew, Mark, and John. I seriously believe that Luke is the author and researcher, and he is the one who was not an eyewitness when it comes to the Gospel of Luke. But I see no reason why three or more authors could have been using Matthew, Mark, and John (or their schools of followers and sayings and teachings and accounts) as resources, in the same way that Luke used eyewitnesses as resources.

18:51 We don't have any writings of Epictetus. We have the writings of his pupil, Arrian

Ms. Walsh needs to take another look at the literary culture from which the Gospels came. So, Luke is a travel story? Sure, but it fits better in the travel story of Exodus than the Odyssey. AND Exodus pre-dates the Odyssey. That is the problem with the idea that the Gospels mimic or draw upon Greek and Roman literature. They have plenty of precedent in Hebrew literature.

The gospel authors apparently knew about the importance of witnesses being identifiable when testifying about important matters (Matthew 18:16, John 8:17), yet Matthew makes no effort to identify himself. As far as John, everybody has to agree that John and his followers likely knew they could have identified authorship more clearly than what we see in John 21:24. Christians cannot seriously pretend that maybe Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never identify themselves because the originally intended audiencea already knew who they were. Most of the originally intended audiences for Paul's authentic letters previously knew who he was, but he still clearly identified himself anyway. We are thus reasonable to adopt the modern critical view that says at best the canonical gospels were authored by second-generation Christians purporting to relay what their apostolic teacher had preached. The hearsay nature of those gospels cannot be overcome. That's why apologists are starting to ramp up their efforts to argue that hearsay is legitimate evidence that everybody is obligated to consider. Yeah...and I'm "obligated" to read the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Philo. LOL And if we allow for the sake of argument that the Christian viewpoint is reasonable, the question becomes whether the skeptical viewpoint can be reasonable. The evidence in favor of the Christian viewpoint is never so strong as to render the opposing view unreasonable. It's not like the modern unbeliever who denies Jesus rose from the dead, is on the same level as the fool who denies the Holocaust. Yet fundamentalists prance around pretending as if the truth of their viewpoint is as obvious as the existence of trees. Let's just say that if I listen to an apologist's case for Jesus, I don't exactly piss myself with panic about Judgment Day.

Some of her arguments are indeed compelling and thought-provoking. However, I have several critiques: 1. She dismisses the claims of ancient authors as fictional simply because they don't align with a naturalistic worldview. There are two issues here. First, the majority of people are not naturalists, so there's no reason for them to be so quick to dismiss accounts of the supernatural. Second, even if naturalism is accurate, that doesn't automatically render these accounts as fictional. The authors and their eyewitnesses might have been mistaken, but they likely believed in what they were saying. Even today, numerous claims of miracles exist, and some are well-supported. 2. The credibility of eyewitness testimony varies depending on its accessibility. It's one thing to refer to witnesses who are far away or from a distant past, and another to cite witnesses from your local community. For instance, a European making claims about people in Arabia, where no European can verify the information, is fundamentally different from Paul discussing eyewitnesses who live among his audience. 3. When ancient historians accuse each other of dishonesty, it implies an expectation for historical accuracy in their writings. Why else would they challenge each other? This doesn't necessarily mean that there were uniform standards for historical writing, but it does suggest that there was some level of expectation for accuracy, and that people could differentiate between literary devices and factual accounts. 4. Some of her examples are poorly chosen. Consider Atlantis: The tale appears in two of Plato's dialogues, "Timaeus" and "Critias," which are philosophical discussions rather than historical narratives. The story is presented by Critias and is said to have occurred 9,000 years before Plato's time, placing it far beyond the scope of reliable historical records. Using this as an example to argue that ancient historians made unfounded claims is not a strong choice.

Great questions! Yaaaassss!!! Hahahahaha! Getting Dr. Walsh on means something! Very good!!!

After months and months i finally picked back up and finished your episode with Andrew Loke today, to un clutter my watch later Good timing lol thanks

You can't really deny her point that everyone is going to have their claims levied at one another and history is basically not really possible to derive from these texts with any sort of confidence.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't find her arguments compelling at all, except her fair point about the difference between modern historiography and historia in antiquity. They are not identical. I do think intent is significant though. So, for example, whereas an ancient medicine is vastly inferior to modern medicine, I don't think ancient practitioners were trying to do something substantially different than moderns. Likewise, ancient handbooks that identify different types of writing are closer to our understanding of genre than she seems to allow. I also find it really bizarre that she gets a pass for passing off the Gospels as moralistic literature, using the Grimm Brothers as an analogy, when there is no evidence that worshiping communities arose from the German fables. So I am saying, there is a substantial difference between the content of some Wagner operas as compared with stories like Hansel and Gretel. But I guess she gets to dismiss the differences when she assumes the ancients lacked her alleged superior understanding of genre, even though I can't help but think she is the one lacking nuance, not the ancients. I also think she is too quick to dismiss at least one level of influence on dialogue in the Gospels, which others have identified as highly [proto-]Rabbinic. I would not assert that Jewish schools were insulated from the influence of the hellenistic philosophers, but it seems really arrogant to assume that only Stoics could have discovered that anger is not conducive to living one's best life. Anyway, I appreciate how gracious Nahoa was with her. I just don't think she was worth his time.

Who is supplying the gospel writers (Apostles) the verbatim discussions with Pilate when they were no where to be found during the passion?

Wasn't Paul secretly working for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original Roman Catholic Saints' members of the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't all of the original symbols used by the earliest Christians identical to those of the Flavian Dynasty? And issn’t one of the earliest iconographic symbols for Christianity, located in a catacomb, under the city of Rome, which was owned by a Flavian Princess? Weren't all of the original Jesus cult texts produced under the oversight of the Flavian Dynasty? Didn't the Flavian Dynasty posses the only remaining copy of the Hebrew Tanakh other than the Greek Septuagint translation? Isn't there Flavian typology in the Gospels? Weren't the canonical texts all back dated like the historical fiction of Gone With The Wind? Wasn't Emperor Vespasian known as the Jewish Messiah? Wasn’t Pope Clement of Rome a Flavian? Wasn't Josephus a temple whore for the Flavian Dynasty? Weren't the Flavian’s, as well as Paul, descended from King Herod? There was no separation of Church and State in the Roman Empire. And Christianity is clearly a Greco-Roman hybrid form of Judaism created by the Flavian Dynasty. As an attempt to adapt, pacify, and integrate the rebellious and defiant Jews into the rest of the Greco-Roman Empire. Just like the Greeks created Hermes Trismegistus to integrate Egyptian mythology with Greek mythology.Then finally Neo-Flavian Constantine chose the Flavian family religion to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire. In order to consolidate power in his fractured Empire. And then Eusebius edited and rewrote the history of the previous 3OO years. Destroying all contradictory evidence. It isn't history it is all simply Greco-Roman mythopoetic literature. Today it is known as Historical Fiction. “What profit hath not this fable of Christ brought us.” Pope Leo X 💙

Short but sweet. I found it interesting to hear about Paul and Mark's stoicism. I really don't know enough about that philosophy.

This is articulated well. Thank both of you.

Which ancient historical narratives are taken as 100% fact?

I hope that you take the time to first and foremost see both the old and new testament as a piece of literature containing a mix of fact and fiction, nevertheless it's largely fictional. I would also suggest that you take the time to read Joseph Campbell and Will Durant on religion.

this young man is a believer

the comment section is becoming more and more interesting with each episode

I'm still just in the intro. When we talk about the traditional view, it depends how far back we go. If we go back before German literary and historical criticism, we could say that the traditional view is that the Gospel accounts are based on eyewitness testimony. If we talk about the scholarly tradition since Germany literary and historical criticism, then the traditional view is that they are not based on eyewitness testimony. As a counter to the traditional view that they are not based on eyewitness testimony, the modern view is again that they are indeed based on eyewitness testimony, but this modern view is for very different reasons than the tradition prior to German biblical criticism.

Great interview, Nahoa.

Methodology of Bible studies has been criticized for quite some time. Thanks to Robyn Faith Walsh for great presentation!

Dr Walsh is a treasure. The little anecdote about her lightbulb moment with realizing she wasn't reading scholars discussing 1st century literature, it was 20th century politics lol. Absolutely. That's one of the main problems we all have - the way we filter through our beliefs systems. Which really hits the skids when it comes to religion and their attendant proof texts. Taking the filter off and going - ok what's the whole deal here. The entire cultural context. See in 1000 years if we make it that far lol in 1000 years we may have had a societal collapse along the way and all they know of the 21th century is that we had these computer creatures they built and the gods had giant storehouse of knowledge carried around in the cloud. Amazon the god of deliverance. etc ... lol And the gods were telepathic and could read our minds when they find old data where we talked about the god Google who read your mind. Again. See we don't know if the reader in the 2nd 3rd century might be still aware of certain tropes that mean things not quite in the grandiose style they are written. And with the dark ages a societal collapse that today we are well unaware of what these written tropes were really about. Coded in a way. Just like what we say today might seem something it's not in the future when they try and reconstruct the lost 21st century. lol For those who have ears to hear. ;)

I think this is the closest I’ve come to having the experience of …” they found him (Nahoa) teaching in the temple.”

40:45 However a lot of the participants in the bible often sound like terrible people 🥲

Dr. Walsh, you remind me of Dr. Laura dAngelo Tyson in 1993 at an Aviation conference the Conton Administration had organized. She was Clinton's Chief Economic Advisor who he had selected instead of Paul Krugman because, like you, she was as cute as a bug I tried to explain to here why both the commercial airlines and Air Traffic Control would become the basket cases they are now because of PATCO, but she had no more understanding of commercial aviation (or economics, it turns out) than you do of the Gospels as literature. The good news is that Pete Buttigieg is beginning to fix commercial aviation and Biden is using Krugman's Salt Water economics in Peddling Prosperity to run Bide omics, which is getting real traction in spite o the do nothing January 6 majority in the House. Good, bad or indifferent, the IDF is fully engaged in Putin's global de-Nazification campaign in Palestine, The issue is the de-Nazification of Netanyahu and the Likud party that murdered Rabin. A Two State Solution with Jerusalem a Regional District has been on the drawing boards since 1957 and Benny Ganz, Gal Gadot and Abdullah II of Jordan can make it word with the Abraham Covenant. The traditional view that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts is absolutely correct, And they were all written, including The Gospel of John, Revelation and Hebrews , by 68 CE We know from Revelation that Revelation was in the process of being conveyed by vision from the Kingdom of God to the Kingdom of Heaven to John the Revelator, Christian prisoner on Patmos, while Nero was still alive. The Holy Ghost provides the evidence for that with the Gematria value of Six Hundred and Sixty and Six, The Arabic symbols,. 666, are a gift of the Magi by way of Gabril and Mohammad and Khadija , The viusal and intellectual elegance of Arabic numbers partially explains what Cat Stevens saw and hears in the Koran that created Yusuf Islam. But, that's another story, I know there is an Oriental component to the origins of Arabic numbers, but if you have ever seen Arabic calligraphy in sand, it will validate the nature of their origins. The good news is, you are absolutely correct that at least 4 elite institutions were engaged in their composition, It is not even a paradox that contemporary eye witness accounts could be assembled by literarily sophisticated people cold have assembled a genre of literature was have come to refer to as Gospels in the 60shippy stage play Godspell, which is my favored way think of the Gospels, especially Acts, which is a play ground for the Holy Spirit. As a mid-Platonic ontology, Tertullian's Trinity is absolutely correct but incomplete, . In the neo-Platonic of Kant's Categorical Imperative, Hume's Gestalt epistemology and Hegel's Spirt of Phenomenology, the universal ontology has 7 elements tht I can discern, There may be 9 elements, but I believe they are more effects than kinetic in nature, Pilate's euangelion to Tiberius reporting the phenomena of Resurrection and the fact that the Jewish god had endorsed the Republican for of an administrative state for a secular humanist society, is the absolute literary foundation of the Gospels and Peter and Paul's separate theologies. That's what the Talking Cross is all about. As literature, what euangelion beans in Mari 1:1 is what Pilate wrote Tiberius whose contents were the Gospel of Peter and not Godspell. Euangelion is uses at least three times in Mark as meaning Godspell, because that's what was going on. Everything written after the Mark 16:8 ending of Mark is all Godspell, except where it is used to anchor the common Jesus harmonic. ' Take James Tabor's advice and forget everything you think you understand from the critical historic method of the Post Modern Deconstruction and the dialectical Marxism of the Jesus Seminar, which is a disinformation generator from the Campus Radicals and draft dodgers for either side in the 60s and compare the prose style and rhetoric of the Gospel of Mark to that of Caesar's Commentaries and Grant's Memoirs. Veni, vidi, vici. There is none of the clutter and fuss of Homer and Virgil. Just the facts, ma'am. As you go along chasing the Gospels down my rabbit hole that all four Gospel writers go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that no one knows there is a secret Christian society in the core of the Roman administrative state, the Italian Regiment and that the Roman legions became Christian virtually instantly as word spread about the Talking cross. Jesus was, demonstratable, lightening in a bottle and the Romans had been included in the deal with the Talking Cross and that's what Cornelius was proposing to explain to Theophilus in what we ow call The Gospel of Mark regarding Pilate's euangelion It's right out of John LeCarre.

John Keegan observes in his History of warfare that historians cannot tell you the influence Aristotle had on Alexander the Great. If Paul had employed the Parable of the Prodigal Son on Mars Hill instead of his lame rabbinical legalism of his "unknown god" argument, he probably would have had a far more favorable response, The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a recasting of The Odyssey, When first we meet Odysseus, he is weeping, His men have become swine and the gods will not allow him to return to Faithful Penelope because of his insolent pride in his taunting of Polyphemus, Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make proud, Like the Prodigal son, Odysseus is allowed to return to Ithaca, where he has the homecoming of the Vietnam combat vet, Bit. unlike Odysseus, who is mistaken for a beggar by everyone buy Argos, his dog, who dies from joy on recognizing him, the Prodigal Son's father recognizes him from a distance and, like a faithful dog greeting his soldier/Master returning from a deployment in the sandbox. he rushes out to celebrate his safe return, And, of course, the older son displays the resentment of the false suitors, who wait ambush for Agamemnon, I don't know how to tell yo this, but Jesus is a profoundly Hellenistic Jew, The Overture to the Gospel of John cold have been the mission statemen of Philo of Alexandria with it's mid-Platonic LOGOS, Like Odysseys, Jesus is the LOGOS. , Jesus perfects Moses's Shema, which is a three legged stool of heart, soul and strength, by adding Plato to create a Shema that is Four Square to the Earth of Heart, soul, mind and strength, Rome was a Republic one hundred years before Plato started composing The Republic which is a sociology of Sparta. (Just for the record, the Terran Federation is based on the sociology of The Republic, The US Army combat veterans of Vietna are the first generation of Starship Troopers. Joe Haldeman, the author of The Foreever war, a squeal to Starship Troopers, was a Starship Trooper. Jimi hendrix was a Starship Trooper and his cover of The Anthem is what it is like to follow Yaweh, Queen of Battle into Hell as a Starship Trooper. Not that it matters, but Jimmy Tabor is preaching from the Gospel of those who were scared shitless of going to Vietnam.) Jesus's death on the corss is a divine endorsement of Socrates's submission to the secular law of Athens, The Cross is the Cup p Jesus wishes to pass Him by in Gethsemane Socrates is the moment history pivoted from the Homeric aesthetic of duty to the gods to the ethic of man's duty to man, John 11:35 is the chiasmatic moment when history pivoted for BCE to CE. and the Jewish GOd Hupothesis was validated with the Resurrection, In the final analysis, Jesu is the essential metric of Socrates influence on Alexander the Great, The Gospels don't rip off Homer: they leave his foot prints on the moon with Apollo 11.

The interview was worth the wait with well formed questions. Some initial thoughts: -I need to read her book more in depth to better understand her evidence and reasons for thinking the gospels were primarily literary in nature in contrast to concursive inspiration (the organic illumination of the Triune God on human authors) aside from her desire to push back against established authority structures and traditions using other supposed Greek literary works with fantastical material as a counterfactual against conservative traditional conclusions of the gospels. -Her acknowledgement of growing up Catholic and having a certain Harvard professor may be the statistical significant piece of data to be the linchpin for the reason as to why she articulates the origin story of how the gospels came to be written as she does but I don’t know. -Also trying to formulate objections to the synthesis of her work and Dennis R. MacDonald’s Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels may be my most challenging apologetic hurdle I’ve faced. Currently I am trying to look up alleged tropes and mimesis used by the gospel authors occurring in Homer and Virgil using Robert Fagles’ translations when comparing.

The four Shakespeares

One thing I would contest is the implication that historical Jesus or pre-gospel historical reconstruction is about validating or unearthing a particular Christian worldview. I see this said a lot by people in and around NT studies, and it must be a problem in the field. But it’s also just what historians do - we can’t wall off a crucial historical period from responsible speculation because other people appropriate that scholarship for theological ends. Crossley, Myles, Mack & Ehrman are examples of people who simply have no interest in authorizing contemporary Christian claims but have tried to reconstruct pre-gospel communities or movements.

The pretty, chatty, and sarcastic professor said: "No mention of Christians till tbe 2nd Century." Roman historian Tacitus, a non christian, proves her wrong! He mentioned them , even before the gospel of Mark was written. What a blah blah blah professor... I reject her hypothesis.

She is on to the idea but has to throw rhetoric out to keep from having to come right out and say that Josephus and his other Jewish Roman collaborators wrote the Gospels to create a peaceful Messiah to help calm the Jewish revolutionary Messiahs. The gospels and Pauline epistles are Non Fiction. Anyone who has a teaching job and sells books has a fear of being shunned by the Christian Industry.

Great interview. Not sure your background, or your where you are headed with this channel and journey, but you perked my interest and will subscribe and binge your past videos. Thank you.

Dr Walsh is very impressive and I think it's worth noting that this information is really coming to light from her in this interview by this intelligent young man. A pleasure to listen to.

31:04 Yes, but the Gospel writers seem to depart from the path of the 1st century historians when they explicitly state their purpose to be morally and theologically instructive in an essential way. Note these examples from Luke and John: "So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." (Luke 1:3‭-‬4) "But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

As always, super impressed by you, Noah. Best of luck with growing the channel!

Very well done on your part. Very impressive.

36 minutes into the interview: “I don't want to go on a donkey for like a 60 kilometer ride when I'm eight months pregnant like that doesn't sound like a real story to me…” Pushback: Where in the gospel accounts is there any suggestion that Mary was on the verge of giving birth when they made the trip? And even if Mary was 8 months pregnant Joseph, having compassion and reverence for the coming new born King, could have put Mary into a cart (complete with soft cushions) that he likely already had with his “tekton” construction business. Contrary to a peasant upbringing presupposition, it’s likely that Joseph ran a vineyard & farm. After all, Joseph’s descendants, according to the 2nd century historian Hegesippus, had a number of acres in a prime viticultural area that caught the attention of the late 1st century Emperor Tragan. See also the 2021 article by the Anglican theologian Ian Paul, “Was Jesus born into a ‘poor’ family?” It contains additional arguments on why it is unlikely that Jesus’ followers were peasants. And that puts a whole different perspective on the argument that Jesus’ disciples were poor illiterate peasants that likely died of health complications before they turned 30 years of age.

Is there a particular reason she has been getting so much of a stage recently?