Follow up to: Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Spud]

There are many small details in the gospels which are either the hallmarks of authentic eyewitness accounts, or are invented to make the stories more convincing.

C.S. Lewis in his 1950 essay, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?" wrote,

"the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art." He says, "There is nothing [like the fourth gospel], even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence."

http://merecslewis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-are-we-to-make-of-resurrection-of.html

I thought I'd check to see if this is correct. Can anyone refute Lewis' statement?

Just come across some interesting examples from a talk by Cold Case Christianity author, J Warner Wallace on YouTube.

First are the gospel accounts of the feeding of the 5,000. Matthew and Mark do not tell us where this took place, exactly. John says it was on the far side of the Sea of Galilee. Only Luke tells us that it was at a town called Bethsaida (Lk 9:10).

John gives us another detail: Jesus asks Philip where they can go to buy bread for the people (Jn 6:5). John has already told us that Philip was from the town of Bethsaida (Jn 1:44). But without Luke's additional information about the location, we wouldn't know why it made sense for Jesus to ask Philip in particular this question. Philip would know where they could go for food.

Second is the accounts of the soldiers beating Jesus. Matthew and Luke tell us that during the trial at the high priest's house, Jesus was asked to prophesy who it was had hit him:

Matthew 26:67-68 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. 68Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”

Luke 22:63-65 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65And they said many other insulting things to him.

Only Luke explains that they had blindfolded Jesus, hence the demand to prophesy which of them had hit him. He and Matthew use different words to describe the beating, the only phrase they share in common being "prophesy...who hit you". So apparently they used independent eyewitnesses.

That one version doesn't make sense without the other is characteristic of real eyewitness accounts, in which one confusing statement is frequently clarified by another witness, according to Wallace, himself a detective.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Just come across some interesting examples from a talk by Cold Case Christianity author, J Warner Wallace on YouTube.

First are the gospel accounts of the feeding of the 5,000. Matthew and Mark do not tell us where this took place, exactly. John says it was on the far side of the Sea of Galilee. Only Luke tells us that it was at a town called Bethsaida (Lk 9:10).

John gives us another detail: Jesus asks Philip where they can go to buy bread for the people (Jn 6:5). John has already told us that Philip was from the town of Bethsaida (Jn 1:44). But without Luke's additional information about the location, we wouldn't know why it made sense for Jesus to ask Philip in particular this question. Philip would know where they could go for food.

Second is the accounts of the soldiers beating Jesus. Matthew and Luke tell us that during the trial at the high priest's house, Jesus was asked to prophesy who it was had hit him:

Matthew 26:67-68 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. 68Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”

Luke 22:63-65 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65And they said many other insulting things to him.

Only Luke explains that they had blindfolded Jesus, hence the demand to prophesy which of them had hit him. He and Matthew use different words to describe the beating, the only phrase they share in common being "prophesy...who hit you". So apparently they used independent eyewitnesses.

That one version doesn't make sense without the other is characteristic of real eyewitness accounts, in which one confusing statement is frequently clarified by another witness, according to Wallace, himself a detective.

You've tried this before Spud - "The different versions of the story don't match, therefore it must be true!". Inconsistencies and discrepancies and contradictions are also what you'd expect if stories aren't true, or if they have a germ of truth and are corrupted through numerous re-tellings (the Chinese whispers effect). A mystic but mortal Jesus for example could have been bigged up into something else as each author embellished along the way.   

[Roses]

Just come across some interesting examples from a talk by Cold Case Christianity author, J Warner Wallace on YouTube.

First are the gospel accounts of the feeding of the 5,000. Matthew and Mark do not tell us where this took place, exactly. John says it was on the far side of the Sea of Galilee. Only Luke tells us that it was at a town called Bethsaida (Lk 9:10).

John gives us another detail: Jesus asks Philip where they can go to buy bread for the people (Jn 6:5). John has already told us that Philip was from the town of Bethsaida (Jn 1:44). But without Luke's additional information about the location, we wouldn't know why it made sense for Jesus to ask Philip in particular this question. Philip would know where they could go for food.

Second is the accounts of the soldiers beating Jesus. Matthew and Luke tell us that during the trial at the high priest's house, Jesus was asked to prophesy who it was had hit him:

Matthew 26:67-68 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. 68Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”

Luke 22:63-65 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65And they said many other insulting things to him.

Only Luke explains that they had blindfolded Jesus, hence the demand to prophesy which of them had hit him. He and Matthew use different words to describe the beating, the only phrase they share in common being "prophesy...who hit you". So apparently they used independent eyewitnesses.

That one version doesn't make sense without the other is characteristic of real eyewitness accounts, in which one confusing statement is frequently clarified by another witness, according to Wallace, himself a detective.

Eye witness accounts are very dubious. I have mentioned many times the Angel of Mons fairy tale, which some soldiers claimed to have seen, when in reality it was a story not an actual event.

[Spud]

Spud,

You've tried this before Spud - "The different versions of the story don't match, therefore it must be true!". Inconsistencies and discrepancies and contradictions are also what you'd expect if stories aren't true, or if they have a germ of truth and are corrupted through numerous re-tellings (the Chinese whispers effect). A mystic but mortal Jesus for example could have been bigged up into something else as each author embellished along the way.   

I thank the right honourable gentleman for his reply. Sorry for not replying back earlier, I'm a bit slow with this stuff.

Yes, we had a long discussion before. I don't think I've ever said that discrepancies etc prove the gospels to be true, only perhaps that they are typical of eyewitness accounts, since witnesses see things from different angles and perspectives. It's true that discrepancies can also indicate accounts are false or embellished, though, as you say.

My argument here is that one gospel can corroborate another - seemingly unintentionally. This seems to be evidence against the possibility of corruption through numerous retelling.

The book of Acts makes no mention of the deaths of Peter or Paul, or of the siege ovJerusalem or its destruction. This makes it unlikely that Acts was written later than AD 60. So the gospel of Luke must be even earlier. This doesn't leave much time for the stories of miracles to develop into legends. And John was an eyewitness, and Mark used Peter's eyewitness accounts, according to the early church leaders

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Spud,

I thank the right honourable gentleman for his reply. Sorry for not replying back earlier, I'm a bit slow with this stuff.

Yes, we had a long discussion before. I don't think I've ever said that discrepancies etc prove the gospels to be true, only perhaps that they are typical of eyewitness accounts, since witnesses see things from different angles and perspectives. It's true that discrepancies can also indicate accounts are false or embellished, though, as you say.

My argument here is that one gospel can corroborate another - seemingly unintentionally. This seems to be evidence against the possibility of corruption through numerous retelling.

The book of Acts makes no mention of the deaths of Peter or Paul, or of the siege ovJerusalem or its destruction. This makes it unlikely that Acts was written later than AD 60. So the gospel of Luke must be even earlier. This doesn't leave much time for the stories of miracles to develop into legends. And John was an eyewitness, and Mark used Peter's eyewitness accounts, according to the early church leaders  Paul also quotes bits of Luke in Corinthians and Timothy, indicating an early date for Luke.

   

No worries. The problem here though isn’t with the possible fact of eyewitness accounts. Grant for now that there were people who saw some things. How then should we get from what they saw to the narratives they then put together about what actually happened? If I go to a magic show I “see” a woman sawn in half, and a bit later I “see” her joined together. That’s a miracle then right?

Except of course it isn’t because what I “witnessed” told me nothing about what actually happened. “Bisected then stuck together again” isn’t something I witnessed at all – it’s a narrative I developed to make sense of what I thought I saw.

Now situate that not in a 21st century magic performance but in a credulous, illiterate, pre-rationalist world in which miracles were commonplace explanations for the otherwise inexplicable.

Now consider the embellishing effect of re-telling of stories. The distortions happen at an exponential rate because as each new part is added that becomes the established story to which the next embellishment is added. It’s a well understood phenomenon, which why in one room with just a few people the original message in a game of Chinese whispers will be completely distorted even when the it was written just minutes before. And moreover that happens when the participants have no deliberate desire to distort at all. 

Now consider what would happen if the re-telling happened over large distance and large periods of time and were shared by people keen to big up whichever miracle story they happened to favour.

Can you see now why the gospels might be reasonable records of, say, how many bales of hay it cost to buy a camel, but are as good as worthless as evidence for genuine miracles?

[Spud]

Can you see now why the gospels might be reasonable records of, say, how many bales of hay it cost to buy a camel, but are as good as worthless as evidence for genuine miracles?

I can see why you would think that, yes. I think what I'll do is have a look for more examples like those in the OP.  Facebook I think has apologetics forums which might help. Thanks for providing a skeptic's perspective. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I can see why you would think that, yes. I think what I'll do is have a look for more examples like those in the OP.  Facebook I think has apologetics forums which might help. Thanks for providing a skeptic's perspective. 

No worries. You can look for more examples if you wish to, though no amount of them will address the central issue I mapped out: discrepant or congruent stories can't tell you anything about the validity of the explanatory narratives the eyewitnesses and re-tellers came up with.

You're a skeptic too by the way - you'd never for example buy a used car from me based on evidence of the quality of that in the gospels for miracles, but you suspend that skepticism when it concerns your faith beliefs.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I go to a magic show I “see” a woman sawn in half, and a bit later I “see” her joined together. That’s a miracle then right?

Now situate that not in a 21st century magic performance but in a credulous, illiterate, pre-rationalist world in which miracles were commonplace explanations for the otherwise inexplicable.

First of all... A woman sawn in half is not a 21 st century magic performance.

As far as we know it is a 19th century trick.

A resurrection show played out in a community of multinationals and multifaiths (rather than an audience who start out knowing that a magician is not for LEGAL REASONS GOING TO SAW A WOMAN IN HALF) probably is a 21st century magic performance worthy of a Dynamo, David Blaine, Derren Brown and of course channel 4 with all the illusionary power that has at it's disposal. Jesus as Derren Brown? Sounds a bit like applying known modern phenomenon to historical situations.

Secondly, that people have probably always had difficulty with the notion of resurrection is clear. The early Christians report that it is, in their day and age, unbelieveable. In fact in the biblical resurrection accounts there are reports that
disciples didn't believe what they were seeing.

Your argument about a credulous world is therefore suspect......and historically illiterate.

Miracles at two a penny is more descriptive of the medieval times I would suggest.

[bluehillside Retd.]

First of all... A woman sawn in half is not a 21 st century magic performance.

As far as we know it is a 19th century trick.

A resurrection show played out in a community of multinationals and multifaiths (rather than an audience who start out knowing that a magician is not for LEGAL REASONS GOING TO SAW A WOMAN IN HALF) probably is a 21st century magic performance worthy of a Dynamo, David Blaine, Derren Brown and of course channel 4 with all the illusionary power that has at it's disposal. Jesus as Derren Brown? Sounds a bit like applying known modern phenomenon to historical situations.

Secondly, that people have probably always had difficulty with the notion of resurrection is clear. The early Christians report that it is, in their day and age, unbelieveable. In fact in the biblical resurrection accounts there are reports that
disciples didn't believe what they were seeing.

Your argument about a credulous world is therefore suspect......and historically illiterate.

Miracles at two a penny is more descriptive of the medieval times I would suggest.

Ah, the ever-welcome return of Vlad missing the point entirely...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, the ever-welcome return of Vlad missing the point entirely...

Even in the unlikely event that I have. Flagging up an historically illiterate
new atheist attempt to bludge through a modern take on the past has to be eminently worthwhile.


You're welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Even in the unlikely event that I have. Flagging up an historically illiterate
new atheist attempt to bludge through a modern take on the past has to be eminently worthwhile.

Reminds me of the old joke: "He born just a whisker from being good looking...

...unfortunately, after that he just kept going."

I know that metaphors, similes, analogies etc pass you by entirely but would it kill you just this once at least to try to keep up?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I know that metaphors, similes, analogies etc pass you by entirely but would it kill you just this once at least to try to keep up?

Oh yes?.....and your statement ''a credulous, illiterate, pre-rationalist world'' is a metaphor for what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh yes?.....and your statement ''a credulous, illiterate, pre-rationalist world'' is a metaphor for what?

So that's a "no" then. Try again if ever the meaning of "analogy" sinks in though...

[Spud]

Spud,

No worries. You can look for more examples if you wish to, though no amount of them will address the central issue I mapped out: discrepant or congruent stories can't tell you anything about the validity of the explanatory narratives the eyewitnesses and re-tellers came up with.

You're a skeptic too by the way - you'd never for example buy a used car from me based on evidence of the quality of that in the gospels for miracles, but you suspend that skepticism when it concerns your faith beliefs.   

The last time I bought a car, the garage had to replace the starter motor and was glad to see the back of me. They had overpriced the car and I made sure I got my money's worth . Although I test drove it, I still had to trust their word that it was in good working order. The gospels offer an answer to the question we all ask, "what's after death?" and like with any purchase, if we want the product we have to trust the evangelist.

Yep, lots of things seemingly don't add up, such as the genealogies of Jesus or the Easter timelines. I think what Wallace is saying however is that based on his experience of solving murder crimes, the gospels can be trusted. This is saying something because convicting someone of murder can't be taken lightly, as the defendant's own life is at stake (in some countries).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The last time I bought a car, the garage had to replace the starter motor and was glad to see the back of me. They had overpriced the car and I made sure I got my money's worth . Although I test drove it, I still had to trust their word that it was in good working order.

Yup. Now imagine that I was selling you my car that I claimed to run for 1,000 miles on a teaspoon of Marmite. “How do I know this is true?” you might ask, and my answer would be that it’s written in a book that says that someone about 30 years ago and a long way away saw it happen, and he told his mate (because it wasn’t thought important enough at the time to write down), and he told his mate and so on multiple times, and then the story was finally written down and then translated a couple of times too. Oh, and the first bloke who saw it happened to live in a place where stories about helicopters running on gravy and submarines running on thimbles of honey were believed to be true too.

All good so far? Great, I’ll take a bank transfer payment please…       
 

The gospels offer an answer to the question we all ask, "what's after death?" and like with any purchase, if we want the product we have to trust the evangelist.

Why? If I were to evangelise for the answer being that you’d end up running a celestial McDonalds on the exit junction for Atlantis serving truck-driving ghosts would you trust me too? 

Why not?

Yep, lots of things seemingly don't add up, such as the genealogies of Jesus or the Easter timelines. I think what Wallace is saying however is that based on his experience of solving murder crimes, the gospels can be trusted. This is saying something because convicting someone of murder can't be taken lightly, as the defendant's own life is at stake (in some countries).

You’re still missing the point. There could have been no miracles at all and the Gospels would still look just as they do now. All a detective could do would be to decide whether or not he thought they authors were honest. Even if they were all as honest as the day is long though, that would tell you nothing at all about whether they were honestly mistaken. Take an Amazonian tribesman to a magic show for example and he would honestly record that he saw a woman sawn in two and joined together again. And if he told his pals back home, and if they told each other, and if those people told some other tribes, and if eventually it was written down, and if then it was translated a couple of times, and if then your detective looked at the various written accounts he’d also think the authors along the way to be honest. That does not though mean that a woman must have been sawn in two and put together again.   

And that’s the problem with Gospel “truth” about supposed miracles.       

[Spud]

BHS,
My car doesn't need petrol either, but it only goes downhill.

[BeRational]

Blue

With regards to the natives of the a Amazon seeing a woman sawn in half etc, has this not already been shown to be true based on the people who were around the US troops in WWII seeing planes drop food etc. I think when the Americans left they build crude communication huts to try to get food flown in. They did not understand  what was happening  and tried to emulate  it

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi BR,

With regards to the natives of the a Amazon seeing a woman sawn in half etc, has this not already been shown to be true based on the people who were around the US troops in WWII seeing planes drop food etc. I think when the Americans left they build crude communication huts to try to get food flown in. They did not understand  what was happening  and tried to emulate  it

Yes - cargo cults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

[BeRational]

Hi BR,

With regards to the natives of the a Amazon seeing a woman sawn in half etc, has this not already been shown to be true based on the people who were around the US troops in WWII seeing planes drop food etc. I think when the Americans left they build crude communication huts to try to get food flown in. They did not understand  what was happening  and tried to emulate  it

Yes - cargo cults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

This shows that people can misunderstand what they are seeing and build and incorrect belief about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi BR,

With regards to the natives of the a Amazon seeing a woman sawn in half etc, has this not already been shown to be true based on the people who were around the US troops in WWII seeing planes drop food etc. I think when the Americans left they build crude communication huts to try to get food flown in. They did not understand  what was happening  and tried to emulate  it

Yes - cargo cults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

The woman sawn in half...….having been dismissed as a suitable metaphor a few posts back now finds herself recycled and transported to the amazon.

Is such an attempted rescue chivalry or desperation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The woman sawn in half...….having been dismissed as a suitable metaphor a few posts back now finds herself recycled and transported to the amazon.

Is such an attempted rescue chivalry or desperation?

Maybe if you tried to stop lying just for five minutes or so and built up from there? It was only "dismissed" because you don't understand the word analogy. In actuality it was no re dismissed than the needle in a haystack analogy would be if someone couldn't show you an actual haystack.

Try the not lying for five minutes thing - you never know, it might actually work. 

[Spud]

Spud,

Yup. Now imagine that I was selling you my car that I claimed to run for 1,000 miles on a teaspoon of Marmite. “How do I know this is true?” you might ask, and my answer would be that it’s written in a book that says that someone about 30 years ago and a long way away saw it happen, and he told his mate (because it wasn’t thought important enough at the time to write down), and he told his mate and so on multiple times, and then the story was finally written down and then translated a couple of times too. Oh, and the first bloke who saw it happened to live in a place where stories about helicopters running on gravy and submarines running on thimbles of honey were believed to be true too.

All good so far? Great, I’ll take a bank transfer payment please…       
 
Why? If I were to evangelise for the answer being that you’d end up running a celestial McDonalds on the exit junction for Atlantis serving truck-driving ghosts would you trust me too?

Why not?

I think we all trust some form answer to the question of life after death. It depends on whether we believe in the supernatural or not.

You’re still missing the point. There could have been no miracles at all and the Gospels would still look just as they do now. All a detective could do would be to decide whether or not he thought they authors were honest. Even if they were all as honest as the day is long though, that would tell you nothing at all about whether they were honestly mistaken. Take an Amazonian tribesman to a magic show for example and he would honestly record that he saw a woman sawn in two and joined together again. And if he told his pals back home, and if they told each other, and if those people told some other tribes, and if eventually it was written down, and if then it was translated a couple of times, and if then your detective looked at the various written accounts he’d also think the authors along the way to be honest. That does not though mean that a woman must have been sawn in two and put together again.   

And that’s the problem with Gospel “truth” about supposed miracles.     

A point of order. I agree that an Amazonian tribesman may be more likely to believe the woman being sawn in half trick to be magic than someone from a developed country. Presumably though, all people have a built-in knowledge of the concept of optical illusion. I went to a kids magic show as a boy where the magician pulled a bunch of flowers out of a rubber ring, which my Dad guessed was the kind you find in the roller of a hoover. So we went out to buy one, me hoping I could magic up some flowers for Mum. Very disappointed when it didn't work, but that was my initiation to the idea that 'magic' is illusion.

Wouldn't the tribesman know that there ought to be blood gushing out, and guess it was actually an illusion?

The gospels report that Jesus was really dead, so countering the idea that they are primitive fishermen mistaking fake death for actual death.

So it's just the resurrection that is in question. John provides evidence that the Jesus they saw wasn't an illusion, saying that they touched and ate with him.

In the end, with respect to their non-miraculous aspects, the gospels prove to be reliable eyewitness documents, in my opinion. A separate analysis is needed to get to accepting the miracles, which is based on my perception of the universe and whether I can accept the existence of God or not.

[BeRational]

I think we all trust some form answer to the question of life after death. It depends on whether we believe in the supernatural or not.

A point of order. I agree that an Amazonian tribesman may be more likely to believe the woman being sawn in half trick to be magic than someone from a developed country. Presumably though, all people have a built-in knowledge of the concept of optical illusion. I went to a kids magic show as a boy where the magician pulled a bunch of flowers out of a rubber ring, which my Dad guessed was the kind you find in the roller of a hoover. So we went out to buy one, me hoping I could magic up some flowers for Mum. Very disappointed when it didn't work, but that was my initiation to the idea that 'magic' is illusion.

Wouldn't the tribesman know that there ought to be blood gushing out, and guess it was actually an illusion?

The gospels report that Jesus was really dead, so countering the idea that they are primitive fishermen mistaking fake death for actual death.

So it's just the resurrection that is in question. John provides evidence that the Jesus they saw wasn't an illusion, saying that they touched and ate with him.

In the end, with respect to their non-miraculous aspects, the gospels prove to be reliable eyewitness documents, in my opinion. A separate analysis is needed to get to accepting the miracles, which is based on my perception of the universe and whether I can accept the existence of God or not.

In what way are they eye witness accounts?

We do  not even know who wrote the gospels

[jeremyp]

Presumably though, all people have a built-in knowledge of the concept of optical illusion. I went to a kids magic show as a boy where the magician pulled a bunch of flowers out of a rubber ring, which my Dad guessed was the kind you find in the roller of a hoover. So we went out to buy one, me hoping I could magic up some flowers for Mum. Very disappointed when it didn't work, but that was my initiation to the idea that 'magic' is illusion.

So what you are saying is that your built-in knowledge of the concept of optical illusion failed you. Doesn't that suggest to you that it doesn't exist?

Wouldn't the tribesman know that there ought to be blood gushing out, and guess it was actually an illusion?

I think that would depend on how you presented it to them. People have an immense ability to believe things that, logically, can't be true, if they really want to believe in them. How else do you explain the religions that exist but that are not Christianity?

The gospels report that Jesus was really dead, so countering the idea that they are primitive fishermen mistaking fake death for actual death.

Even if they were fishermen, what makes you think they were primitive?

So it's just the resurrection that is in question. John provides evidence that the Jesus they saw wasn't an illusion, saying that they touched and ate with him.

You mean it is written in the Gospel of John. It's written in the Harry Potter books that you can fly on a broomstick and even play team sports on them. We do not know who wrote John, we do not know his source for the post resurrection stories. We know there is no independent corroborating source for any of his post resurrection stories and we know he was writing for an audience in a fledgling religion full of people who wanted to believe that Jesus' execution wasn't the end of him.

In the end, with respect to their non-miraculous aspects, the gospels prove to be reliable eyewitness documents, in my opinion.

There's nothing in any of the gospels that make them look like eye witness documents. There are, for example, no first hand accounts. Whereas there is evidence of large scale copying from Mark to the others.

Your best argument for them being eye witness documents is that they are like real eye witness accounts in the sense that they are unreliable like real eye witness accounts. Your argument is self defeating, if true.

A separate analysis is needed to get to accepting the miracles, which is based on my perception of the universe and whether I can accept the existence of God or not.

That is a circular argument.

[Roses]

I think we all trust some form answer to the question of life after death. It depends on whether we believe in the supernatural or not.

A point of order. I agree that an Amazonian tribesman may be more likely to believe the woman being sawn in half trick to be magic than someone from a developed country. Presumably though, all people have a built-in knowledge of the concept of optical illusion. I went to a kids magic show as a boy where the magician pulled a bunch of flowers out of a rubber ring, which my Dad guessed was the kind you find in the roller of a hoover. So we went out to buy one, me hoping I could magic up some flowers for Mum. Very disappointed when it didn't work, but that was my initiation to the idea that 'magic' is illusion.

Wouldn't the tribesman know that there ought to be blood gushing out, and guess it was actually an illusion?

The gospels report that Jesus was really dead, so countering the idea that they are primitive fishermen mistaking fake death for actual death.

So it's just the resurrection that is in question. John provides evidence that the Jesus they saw wasn't an illusion, saying that they touched and ate with him.

In the end, with respect to their non-miraculous aspects, the gospels prove to be reliable eyewitness documents, in my opinion. A separate analysis is needed to get to accepting the miracles, which is based on my perception of the universe and whether I can accept the existence of God or not.

The gospels state many less than credible things, which should be taken with a large container of salt until there is evidence to substantiate them.