What is the history of claims that Christians' accounts about Jesus were accurate?

[Leucius Charinus]

I am aware that GJohn and 2 Peter 1:16 emphasize that they were written by witnesses to Jesus and that Ignatius emphasises that the events happened in Pilate's time, but Justin makes no appeal to the authors as witnesses or accurate preservers of authentic traditions as far as my limited awareness knows. But today, Christians regularly defend their faith by empasizing how accurate their accounts about Jesus are and that they are from traditions from Jesus's followers.

So what is the history of this claim? is Papias the earliest to make such claims outside the Christians' scriptures?

I seek answers from here.

The way I'd answer this question is that the history of this claim - authentic traditions - involves the Christian scriptures themselves. That they were written down by eyewitnesses shortly after Pilate's time and that physical written manuscripts were preserved (supposedly) by certain of the ante Nicene "Fathers" through to Eusebius and on to today.

Unlike the Buddhist scriptures, from what I have read, and recently, through your postings, the Christian scriptures did not have any period of oral transmission after the eyewitnesses wrote. The Christian writings were supposedly written by the "eyewitnesses".

The church fathers transmitted the manuscripts from the eyewitnesses to today. That is what I perceive to be the historical claim of the Christian education system. I don't agree with this claim of course, but that's what I think the core claim is. The "Universal Church" transmitted hand-written manuscripts written by the eyewitnesses to the life and death of "IS XS". Amen.

Extraneous claims of all kinds (deaths of the apostles, apocryphal pop culture) accreted around these core "canonical" claims at some later epoch.

[Paul the Uncertain]

It probably muddies the water somewhat, but Eusebius in the Fourth Century makes an extraordinary claim of having found primary evidence of Jesus, namely correspondence between King Abgar and Jesus. Eusebius claims the provenance of his copy is the Edessan state archives (by Eusebius's time no longer an independent kingdom), and says that he is the first to translate this material into Greek (Church History I.13).

The actual situation from a modern point of view is that the correspondence was a forgery, perhaps produced in Armenia to establish a distinguished lineage for what became the dominant faction within the church there. If genuine, however, the documents would attest to the accuracy of several elements of Christian accounts about Jesus (e.g., Judean location, healing ministry, teaching, having disciples, Jesus's foreseeing his death and that his disciples would continue the ministry afterward). It is plausible that Eusebius's role in the affair is that of a credulous dupe rather than a master forger.

The reception of the correspondence was friendly enough that other versions of the correspondence came to be produced, with improvements in the story as time went on. In some sense, then, the development of the "Epistles of Jesus and Abgar" is a lot like that of the canonical gospels: each retelling builds upon the previous tellings. Except, of course, the "Epistles" were a minor affair except perhaps in and around Armenia.

On a small point arising in the OP,

I am aware that GJohn and 2 Peter 1:16 emphasize that they were written by witnesses to Jesus

That is not at all clear in John. What is said in verses 19:35 and 21:24 seems to refer a written primary source for specific facts not found in other canonical gospels (the flow of blood and water from the pierced corpse, the final post-resurrection appearance and discourse) rather than a claim that the Gospel in hand was written in its entirety by the source witness (based on chapter 21, that would be the anonymous "Beloved Disciple").

[Irish1975]

Relatedly, the unstable, shifting concept of apostle in the NT construction is worth pondering—

1. One who has seen the risen Lord (Paul)
2. One who is sent to preach the gospel (Paul)
3. Associate of the Galilean, attended the final meal in Jerusalem (canonical Gospels)
4. Teacher of Elders known to Papias
5. Eyewitness source for canonical Gospels Matthew and Mark (Papias)
6. Eyewitness source for canonical Gospel John (Gospel of John itself)
7. Author of canonical Gospels Matthew and John (canonical redaction w/ distinctive titles, The Gospel According to ___)
8. Teacher of Author of canonical Gospels Mark and Luke (same as 7)
9. Persecuted/Executed witnesses of the Jesus resurrection (as historical event) before Gentile rulers (Acts)
10. Authors of epistles and apocalypse (canonical redaction)
11. Original, legitimating authority for an inter-generational succession of church leaders (Irenaeus, author of 1 Clement)

Obviously the notion of being an eyewitness to earthly events is useful only in some contexts where apostolic authority is invoked, and even then it is not clear what manner of events were “seen” or in what manner. E.g., did anyone “see” Satan’s temptation of the Lord in the desert? No, it would either have been reported to them afterwards by the Lord, or made known to them through a revelation. But then we are not sure that “eyewitness” is a meaningful term. Luke’s prologue is packed with ambiguity: οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου (1:2). Were these persons “from the beginning” eyewitnesses of the words and deeds of the Galilean, in a straightforward “historical” sense? Or were they “eyewitnesses (and servants) of the Logos,” in the wide open sense of that latter expression? The ambiguity is deliberate, so that readers of any theological persuasion can infer the meaning that suits them.

[ABuddhist]

the Christian scriptures did not have any period of oral transmission after the eyewitnesses wrote.

But the Christians' gosels are often alleged to be based upon oral tradition - althou from what I understand there is growing reason to doubt that even among mainstream scholars.

[Leucius Charinus]

the Christian scriptures did not have any period of oral transmission after the eyewitnesses wrote.

But the Christians' gosels are often alleged to be based upon oral tradition - althou from what I understand there is growing reason to doubt that even among mainstream scholars.

It is certainly true that there is growing reason to doubt that the gospels were first century eyewitness manuscript sources. But going down that road is a very slippery slope for the traditional "historical" explanation of Christian origins.

Oral traditions and the formation of the gospels

Modern scholars have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:

* The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.

* In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate

* In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus

* In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_gosp ... he_gospels

But whatever way you look at it there appears to be no way to avoid the conclusion that the Christian scriptures did not have any period of oral transmission after the eyewitnesses wrote. Hence the $64,000 question when -- or better yet: in which century -- did the "eyewitnesses" write?

[Peter Kirby]

Do you mean 2 Peter ?

1 Peter is almost certainly quoted in the letter of Polycarp (1st half of 2nd century.)

Andrew Criddle

If you are correct about the quotation, which your wording suggests that you are willing to concede may not be true, then redating Polycarp's letter to later is still an option. Certainly, more radical things have been proposed, here and elsewhere.

Andrew Criddle has this funny fault of trying to follow the evidence fairly and carefully, while pointing out the relevant data.

People who consistently argue in favor of the holding open the option for "more radical" proposals have a very different way of approaching things. Which is quite simply, to try to snuff out any impact of the relevant data. The possible is their favorite refuge. It requires no real thinking or research.

That's a dumb statement Peter.

I wouldn't put it past me. And the last sentence was maybe a little provocative, but aimed at a type of behavior, with respect to that specific behavior, and not meant to be a slam on anyone in particular or a broad statement on anyone not doing any thinking or research ever. In any case, it seems like you agree with me in your very next sentence, so I guess the issue was the phrasing.

Everything is always possible, and it is only the likelihood of something that counts. The likelihood of Papias having existed and written what Irenaeus claims is awfully small, given the fact that Irenaeus is his sole witness.

Are you impressed with this argument? I'm not impressed by this argument, even as stated (and it glosses over the other references to Papias). Why is this supposed to be an argument for an "awfully small" likelihood that Papias existed and wrote?

Also, you're kind of changing the subject. Andrew posted on Polycarp and 1 Peter.

And obviously the FF need to close the gap between Jesus and Justin, and evidently they do so

I don't have a "more radical" proposal, I have a very straightforward proposal that is backed up by giant amounts of data - and there are a few thousand pages of it freely available

Just tell me one thing: logion 96 that irrefutably says 'colostrum' instead of leaven, why does it get translated incorrectly by all?

viewtopic.php?p=125061#p125061 for the full story, viewtopic.php?p=146602#p146602 for the quick pics to verify

You're surely doing the Lord's work here. I haven't had time yet to look into what you're asking me about.

You may accuse me of anything, and you highly likely meant someone else when you referred to "no real ... research". But if you're all in favour of real research, then finally do some cleaning up on your links to Thomas, as some of it is dead and some of it entirely useless and not even half finished, like Hansen's

Tell me about it. It's been a constant issue since the day I put up a site. Endless whack a mole. I'm not sure links are even worth it anymore.

[Stuart]

The Marcionites denied any gospel was written by an eyewitness. The ball got rolling with Paul. It's hard to know who exactly was a "Marcionite" as the views of identified Marcionites are wide ranging. My guess is a Marcionite was someone who held only to the gospel of Paul

Not correct. In Dialogue Adamantius (1.7) Megethius, the Marcionite champion, gives the opinion that Jesus wrote the gospel, except the parts of his death and after, which were written by Paul. Similarly, Jews of this era held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, except the parts after his death which were written by Joshua. This is typical of how books were viewed classically. The line between literal and inspired authorship was almost nil. People were stupid on this, still are.

Megethius: "I will prove the Gospel is one"
Adamantius: "Who is the writer of this Gospel which you said is one?"
Megethius: "Christ."
Adamantius: "Did the Lord himself write that he was crucified, and rose on the third day? Does he write in this way?"
Megethius: "The apostle Paul added that."
Adamantius: "Was Paul present at the crucifixion of Christ?"
Megethius: "He himself (i.e., Jesus) plainly wrote the Gospel."
// Megethius dodges the question and Adamantius doesn't follow up, betraying the artificiality of the discussion.

Some people were obviously aware of fiction. Mani would boast that unlike Moses, Buddha or Jesus, whom he said wrote nothing, their words passed down second hand by others after their passing, that he wrote his own holy books. Maybe people weren't so stupid, and some still are not.