Are the Gospels eyewitness accounts?

[ENIGMA]

I started this thread in Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma because one can answer this question either way whether or not one considers the events stated in the Gospels to have actually occurred. If a moderator after reading the OP thinks this would be better suited for Apologetics, then they can feel free to move it there.

Anyway:

The question posed is whether the writing styles of the Gospels are consistent with that of an eyewitness account. To illustrate what I am getting at, let me show a few (fictional, but plausible) eyewitness accounts on another topic.

Eyewitness Account 1:

I was walking back to my dorm at around 8 at night when I saw a white van crash into a parked red car at the corner of North Avenue and Techwood. The van was going at least 30 miles per hour when it crashed into the car, hitting the red car side on, severely damaging the left side of the red car and moving in onto the sidewalk. After the collision, the white van, which had suffered some damage to its front bumper, backed up and zoomed off. I couldn't catch the license plate.

In the above example, the account was written in the first person as indicated by what I would term the "eyewitness I", which is an "I" that unambiguously refers to the narrarator or the eyewitness. To my knowledge, the only Gospel in which the "eyewitness I" is used is in Luke, and even then it is used to indicate that Luke is not himself an eyewitness but is supposedly compiling testimony from those who are. Is there any other use of the "eyewitness I"?

Of course, one can have an eyewitness account without the "eyewitness I".

Eyewitness Account 2:

A white van crashed into a parked red car at the corner of North Avenue and Techwood. The van was going at least 30 miles per hour when it crashed into the car, hitting the red car side on, severely damaging the left side of the red car and moving in onto the sidewalk. After the collision, the white van, which had suffered some damage to its front bumper, backed up and zoomed off. The license plate number was not readily visible.

This is written in the third-person limited form, which is where events are expressed without the use of an "eyewitness I", but is written from one and only one point of view. In other words, the text takes no dramatic jumps in perspective beyond that which a single eyewitness could plausibly take. A counter example:

Not an Eyewitness Account:

While he was driving a couple buddies home in his white van, Bob was talking on his cell phone to his wife, Mary. "Look, I'm sorry, but the client meeting ran late and...", Bob said.
Mary sighed and replied, "Fine, I'll get something around for you to eat when you get here.".
Bob said "Thanks, I'll be home soo..." but was interrupted when he crashed his white van into a red car he had overlooked in his conversation.

"Bob? Bob?", said Mary, with no response. "Guess the signal got lost somewhere".

"Darn cell phone's smashed... Are y'all all right back there?", asked Bob.
"I'm fine but Matt doesn't look too good.", said Phil.
"Crap, there's a hospital around here, we'd better get him there quick!", said Bob, rushing away from the wreckage of the red car toward the hospital.

The above obviously isn't an eyewitness account. It may be a narrative of events based on multiple eyewitness accounts (possibly a combination of Phil and Mary, or Matt and Mary, or some other unspecified combination), but it cannot be an eyewitness account because no single eyewitness could have plausibly seen all of the above events.

So, overall the main questions of contention for the thread are:

1) Are there any other uses of the "eyewitness I" in the Gospels? If so, what are they and what do they indicate about the eyewitness/narrator?

2) Where there isn't an "eyewitness I", can the events in any given individual book of the Gospels be plausibly observed by a single eyewitness (making it a possible eyewitness account) or not (making it, at best, a narrative based on several unspecified eyewitness accounts)?

[Goat]

Are you ever going to show me about this evidence about the Gospels being rewritten, your wearing everybody out with this. You keep saying it but I have yet to see your stuff?

Biker

And how do you account for the fact the Gospel of Marcion is so similar to the Gospel of Luke, except missing a number of passages, and having abreviated versions of other passages. What evidence do you bring to the table for your analysis?

What evidence do you ahve the Erhman is wrong in his book. Quote his book and then show your evidence where it is wrong. Can you show something substantial rather than handwaving dismissils, and claims that evidence was not presented, even when it has been?

[Cathar1950]

Reworked bible.
I don’t think everyone is worn thin because I have not provided evidence. Just those that refuse to see that there have been changes. Even the most conservative scholars acknowledge this even if they disagree on the issues and interpretations. I have given you plenty so has others, even more so. It is just a complaint you keep repeating, along with others as a ruse to address the question raised.
I know you would like something that fits on a bumper sticker and will most likely return with something analogous but they are not many scholars today that will not admit there have been changes from the originals. The variations in the manuscript are enough to demonstrate that fact.
We don’t have any originals and there has been changes in what is now called the bible.
Some are from copy errors some are from editing and comments copied.
To not understand that the writings and interpretations have gone thru changes is to simply have your head stuck is to deny all the scholarship that has been done on the subject. Even the selection of writings to include has been debated from to today.
Higher and Lower Criticism goes hand in hand. It is not a view exclusive to liberals.
Mark was used by Like and Matthew. Their chronology is different as well as words and meaning.
The OT has undergone many changes and editing.
The NT has nothing before the second century when these writings were being created, edited and discussed. The variations are there. Even translation has its problems. You ignore so much that it is impossible to know where to even start. As I follow up with more details tell me what it is you disagree with? Are you saying the NT has had no change from the originals and if so how do you account for variations? Do you believe that Paul wrote al the 13 writing attributed to him?
Why do you think so in light of all the studies that have been done and arguments showing only 7 are truly his? Even conservative scholars accept the studies. Where do you get your information about how they developed? Do you think they just popped into the writer’s heads right from God all perfect and perfectly passed on?
You say you read Erhman and disagree. I will use his books as an example. So tell me what it is you disagree with and why. I got three or four here just for your pleasure.
I just got all these books back that I have read to take notes on so I am ready. What would you like? I only have some of these for three weeks but I own some.
I have given you what you asked and you ignore it and keep repeating you want evidence. What do you call evidence and what do you disagree with?

So tell me what do you disagree with about Ehrman's writtings that you read?
Maybe you can tell us what others disagree with, if that makes it easier.

[Biker]

Are you ever going to show me about this evidence about the Gospels being rewritten, your wearing everybody out with this. You keep saying it but I have yet to see your stuff?

Biker

And how do you account for the fact the Gospel of Marcion is so similar to the Gospel of Luke, except missing a number of passages, and having abreviated versions of other passages. What evidence do you bring to the table for your analysis?

What evidence do you ahve the Erhman is wrong in his book. Quote his book and then show your evidence where it is wrong. Can you show something substantial rather than handwaving dismissils, and claims that evidence was not presented, even when it has been?

Very simple. Gospel of Marcion is a non issue. Its not in the Bible.
Goat, you are the pot calling the kettle black. All day long everyday you spit out one liners with handwaving dismissals.
Do you have something of Ehrmans for me to refute? This thread is about Gospel eyewitness accounts, not Ehrman eyewitness accounts.

Biker

[Goat]

Are you ever going to show me about this evidence about the Gospels being rewritten, your wearing everybody out with this. You keep saying it but I have yet to see your stuff?

Biker

And how do you account for the fact the Gospel of Marcion is so similar to the Gospel of Luke, except missing a number of passages, and having abreviated versions of other passages. What evidence do you bring to the table for your analysis?

What evidence do you ahve the Erhman is wrong in his book. Quote his book and then show your evidence where it is wrong. Can you show something substantial rather than handwaving dismissils, and claims that evidence was not presented, even when it has been?

Very simple. Gospel of Marcion is a non issue. Its not in the Bible.
Goat, you are the pot calling the kettle black. All day long everyday you spit out one liners with handwaving dismissals.
Do you have something of Ehrmans for me to refute? This thread is about Gospel eyewitness accounts, not Ehrman eyewitness accounts.

Biker

Of course the Gospel of Marcion is an issue. It was the first attempt to make a cannon. It is strong evidence that the Gospel of Luke was added to in a year later that 130 C.E. You might want to ignore that evidence, but there it is.

[Biker]

Are you ever going to show me about this evidence about the Gospels being rewritten, your wearing everybody out with this. You keep saying it but I have yet to see your stuff?

Biker

And how do you account for the fact the Gospel of Marcion is so similar to the Gospel of Luke, except missing a number of passages, and having abreviated versions of other passages. What evidence do you bring to the table for your analysis?

What evidence do you ahve the Erhman is wrong in his book. Quote his book and then show your evidence where it is wrong. Can you show something substantial rather than handwaving dismissils, and claims that evidence was not presented, even when it has been?

Very simple. Gospel of Marcion is a non issue. Its not in the Bible.
Goat, you are the pot calling the kettle black. All day long everyday you spit out one liners with handwaving dismissals.
Do you have something of Ehrmans for me to refute? This thread is about Gospel eyewitness accounts, not Ehrman eyewitness accounts.

Biker

Of course the Gospel of Marcion is an issue. It was the first attempt to make a cannon. It is strong evidence that the Gospel of Luke was added to in a year later that 130 C.E. You might want to ignore that evidence, but there it is.

Then why is Luke in and Marcion out?Do you have better info than they?
If so what is it?

Biker

[Goat]

Are you ever going to show me about this evidence about the Gospels being rewritten, your wearing everybody out with this. You keep saying it but I have yet to see your stuff?

Biker

And how do you account for the fact the Gospel of Marcion is so similar to the Gospel of Luke, except missing a number of passages, and having abreviated versions of other passages. What evidence do you bring to the table for your analysis?

What evidence do you ahve the Erhman is wrong in his book. Quote his book and then show your evidence where it is wrong. Can you show something substantial rather than handwaving dismissils, and claims that evidence was not presented, even when it has been?

Very simple. Gospel of Marcion is a non issue. Its not in the Bible.
Goat, you are the pot calling the kettle black. All day long everyday you spit out one liners with handwaving dismissals.
Do you have something of Ehrmans for me to refute? This thread is about Gospel eyewitness accounts, not Ehrman eyewitness accounts.

Biker

Of course the Gospel of Marcion is an issue. It was the first attempt to make a cannon. It is strong evidence that the Gospel of Luke was added to in a year later that 130 C.E. You might want to ignore that evidence, but there it is.

Then why is Luke in and Marcion out?Do you have better info than they?
If so what is it?

Biker

That question has no meaning to the question at hand. The gospel of Marcion and th Gospel of Luke have a strong connection (Marcion is basically a shortened , more primative version of Luke), and thus is evidence that the Gospel of Luke was modified later, (or Luke and Marcicion were both working off another common source).

[Biker]

Are you ever going to show me about this evidence about the Gospels being rewritten, your wearing everybody out with this. You keep saying it but I have yet to see your stuff?

Biker

And how do you account for the fact the Gospel of Marcion is so similar to the Gospel of Luke, except missing a number of passages, and having abreviated versions of other passages. What evidence do you bring to the table for your analysis?

What evidence do you ahve the Erhman is wrong in his book. Quote his book and then show your evidence where it is wrong. Can you show something substantial rather than handwaving dismissils, and claims that evidence was not presented, even when it has been?

Very simple. Gospel of Marcion is a non issue. Its not in the Bible.
Goat, you are the pot calling the kettle black. All day long everyday you spit out one liners with handwaving dismissals.
Do you have something of Ehrmans for me to refute? This thread is about Gospel eyewitness accounts, not Ehrman eyewitness accounts.

Biker

Of course the Gospel of Marcion is an issue. It was the first attempt to make a cannon. It is strong evidence that the Gospel of Luke was added to in a year later that 130 C.E. You might want to ignore that evidence, but there it is.

Then why is Luke in and Marcion out?Do you have better info than they?
If so what is it?

Biker

That question has no meaning to the question at hand. The gospel of Marcion and th Gospel of Luke have a strong connection (Marcion is basically a shortened , more primative version of Luke), and thus is evidence that the Gospel of Luke was modified later, (or Luke and Marcicion were both working off another common source).

Goat,
Lets take a look at your conjecture/speculation.

"and thus is evidence that the Gospel of Luke was modified later,"

Do you have conclusive hard evidence of this? If so give it.
Goat this illustrates the matter at hand.
You and Cathar both place heavy emphasis and reliance on B.D. Ehrman. He was part of a 4th revision of the book The Text Of The New Testament, originally penned by Bruce Metzger. In chapter 2 Important Witnesses to The New Testament, Item 1. Important Greek Papyri of the New Testament it talks about the P4, P64, P67. The important details about these hard physical documents is this. (a) They all derive from a single-quire codex that originally contained all four Gospels. (b) Among its significant features is its use of an organized text division (c) Skeat dated the document to the "late second century". (Some scholars place it earlier). (d) As such, they represent the oldest four-Gospel manuscript known to exist and push the practice of organized text division back into the second century.
This means many things, of which I will not go into now but will bear upon subsequent discussion.

Biker