New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Spud]

For LR

https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/new-evidence-the-gospels-were-based-on-eyewitness-accounts

[Spud]

Same video on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8

[Gordon]

Spud

This is from the same chap you linked to on the Matthean thread, and since he went straight into the Lewis nonsense I doubt this is much of an improvement - perhaps you should try a scholar who isn't a Christian apologist.

[jeremyp]

I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but if the comments both here and on the Youtube site are any indication, it's not looking promising.

Furthermore, the video is of a lecture from 2011. It's not new and the fact that we aren't all aware of it suggests that serious scholars have pretty much dismissed it.

[Roses]

I haven't had time to read through it all, but what I have read so far doesn't change my view, that eyewitnesses who claim to have been present at events, which have no verifiable evidence to support them, should not be taken seriously.

[Gordon]

Since the second sentence in the main page reads ' If the authors were eyewitnesses, one could assume greater reliability.', I think we can dismiss this without further consideration.

[jeremyp]

My thoughts so far:

The trilemma bit at the beginning. I don't have a problem with that he says about that. His addition of "legend" is fine by me. The only thing I would say is that the trilemma only ever worked as an argument if there is some sort of strange taboo about calling Jesus a liar or a lunatic. I don't think either of those possibilities are infeasible.

The analogy to karate is interesting. I don't know much about karate but it wouldn't surprise me if it hasn't evolved over the years. Even if it hasn't, as he says, karate is taught very carefully. There's no evidence that early Christians applied any such care to transmitting their teachings.

The name thing  doesn't work. The sample of names in the NT is too small to draw reliable conclusions from. And also, if you'd not been to Palestine but you wanted to write a story about it, you are going to pick names from the region you've heard before, which are likely to be the common ones.

[Spud]

I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?

[Gordon]

I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?

I can see it now, Spud: 'light fingers' Freddie is in the dock being asked where he was between 8pm and 10pm on the night of the 5th - "I was in the Nag's Head, your honour, met this lovely chap called Simon", says Freddie, "and very distinctive he was too, especially his facial scars, so I know for sure I was nowhere near No. 10 Acacia Avenue that evening, so it weren't me wot burgled it."

No doubt any reasonable jury would immediately acquit him - after all, he remembered he had bumped into Simon so the rest of his story must be true.

[Walter]

I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?

spud

Why did I never think of this , it's so obvious doh !


FFS stop embarrassing yourself  . What the fuck is wrong with you !?

[jeremyp]

I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?

How do you know they got the names right?

[Spud]

How do you know they got the names right?

Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex. For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.

As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?

[jeremyp]

Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex. For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.

What? You are claiming that naming somebody specifically  and then using a shortened version of the name after establishing who they are means that the stories are not fictional? So if I say "Blackadder the Fourth was a captain in the British Army in the First World War" and then go on to describe howe Blackadder killed the Red Baron and evaded being shot for disobeying orders, it makes the story true.

As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?

Maybe he never really said it and it was a device invented by the gospel authors.

[Roses]

Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex. For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.

As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?

We have no idea what Jesus was actually like, I suspect in reality he had nothing in common with the Jesus character created by the gospel writers.

[jeremyp]

We have no idea what Jesus was actually like, I suspect in reality he had nothing in common with the Jesus character created by the gospel writers.

But what you fail to realise is that he has the sixth most common given name in 1st century Palestine (according to the lecture), therefore everything in the Gospels must be true.

That seems like a completely watertight argument. I can't see a massive gaping hole in it anywhere /sarcasm.

[Roses]

But what you fail to realise is that he has the sixth most common given name in 1st century Palestine (according to the lecture), therefore everything in the Gospels must be true.

That seems like a completely watertight argument. I can't see a massive gaping hole in it anywhere /sarcasm.

You are right of course.

[Gordon]

Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex.

This chap may say this but on what basis should we regard him (or any Christian apologist) as being authoritative?

For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.

Don't be silly: in general conversation about politics if you said 'Boris' to most people in the UK they would know who you were referring to - but using a shortened version like this would make his lies no more or less believable than if you used his full moniker. Apparently 'Boris' refers to himself by another of his forenames when dealing with family and friends - so what?

As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?

If you mention just the forenames of made-up characters many people will be able to identify them and go on to describe them as having certain attributes even though they are wholly fictitious - try it with 'Harry' or 'Sherlock'.

[ProfessorDavey]

But what you fail to realise is that he has the sixth most common given name in 1st century Palestine (according to the lecture), therefore everything in the Gospels must be true.

That seems like a completely watertight argument. I can't see a massive gaping hole in it anywhere /sarcasm.

I watched a bit of the video and he is a rather engaging speaker but his arguments are very weak.

He seems to fail to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient in term of the correct details in the gospels and they being based on eye witness accounts, let alone true.

Sure if the gospels were riddled with names and cultural/societal details that are demonstrably not consistent with 1stC palestine then we would easily dismiss they as being completely detached from eye witnesses. But that is only a necessary step, not a sufficient one to give credence to eye witnesses. Being able to include the right names and cultural details provides no positive evidence that the stories are based on eye witness accounts - the details might be correct, but the story completely made up as is often the case in fiction.

But even were the stories to be based on eye witness account, we know that untrained observers of events can be incredibly poor at recounting what actually happened, even if asked straight away. Add to that the 'lost in translation' of decades and the selection of narratives to suit a faith position rather than a historically accurate position and the accounts in the gospels are likely to be massively different to what actually happened, even if based on some original eye witness accounts.

And the final point is the implausibility - if the gospels made entirely plausible claims (e.g. Jesus died, the end), while we might still be uncertain of the eye witness veracity we may give the account the benefit of the doubt. But the gospels made implausible and extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence if we are to accept them. That evidence does not exist and is no stronger just because the gospels got the names of people right.

[jeremyp]

I watched a bit of the video and he is a rather engaging speaker but his arguments are very weak.

He seems to fail to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient in term of the correct details in the gospels and they being based on eye witness accounts, let alone true.

Sure if the gospels were riddled with names and cultural/societal details that are demonstrably not consistent with 1stC palestine then we would easily dismiss they as being completely detached from eye witnesses. But that is only a necessary step, not a sufficient one to give credence to eye witnesses. Being able to include the right names and cultural details provides no positive evidence that the stories are based on eye witness accounts - the details might be correct, but the story completely made up as is often the case in fiction.

But even were the stories to be based on eye witness account, we know that untrained observers of events can be incredibly poor at recounting what actually happened, even if asked straight away. Add to that the 'lost in translation' of decades and the selection of narratives to suit a faith position rather than a historically accurate position and the accounts in the gospels are likely to be massively different to what actually happened, even if based on some original eye witness accounts.

And the final point is the implausibility - if the gospels made entirely plausible claims (e.g. Jesus died, the end), while we might still be uncertain of the eye witness veracity we may give the account the benefit of the doubt. But the gospels made implausible and extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence if we are to accept them. That evidence does not exist and is no stronger just because the gospels got the names of people right.

Exactly. The distinction between necessary and sufficient is very nicely put.

I've only watched the bit about people's names so far. I think there's a bit coming up about place names. I'll be interested to see if he confronts the geographical errors in Mark.

[Dicky Underpants]

As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?

"Son of Man" seems to have at least a couple of meanings. The first, used in Aramaic and Hebrew, seems to be a way of avoiding saying "I" directly, just as anyone of us might say "Yours truly had a really rough night - I'm sure the town foxes had a better sleep". The other sense, which Jesus may or may not  have used to refer to himself, occurs typically at Matthew 16:27, and obviously refers back to the Son of Man figure coming in judgment in the Book of Daniel. Since in neither sense is it a name, I don't see why the writers of the epistles or the early church fathers should have used the term much - by that time Paul and had decided that he was Jesus Messiah, Lord and Saviour, and the church fathers had decided that he was God the Son, second person of the Trinity.

[Roses]

Jesus was a the son of a man.

[Walter]

Jesus was a the son of a man.

do-dah
            do-dah

[ekim]

"Son of Man" seems to have at least a couple of meanings. The first, used in Aramaic and Hebrew, seems to be a way of avoiding saying "I" directly, just as anyone of us might say "Yours truly had a really rough night - I'm sure the town foxes had a better sleep". The other sense, which Jesus may or may not  have used to refer to himself, occurs typically at Matthew 16:27, and obviously refers back to the Son of Man figure coming in judgment in the Book of Daniel. Since in neither sense is it a name, I don't see why the writers of the epistles or the early church fathers should have used the term much - by that time Paul and had decided that he was Jesus Messiah, Lord and Saviour, and the church fathers had decided that he was God the Son, second person of the Trinity.

I think that "son of" is a Hebrew idiom, like 'father of', 'mother of', 'daughter of'.  For example 'father of God' meant pious, 'mother of the arm' meant forearm, 'daughter of' music meant singer.  I believe two of the followers of Jesus were called boanerges - 'sons of thunder' which meant impetuous.  'Son of man' probably referred to the human aspect of a man and 'son of God' to the believed divine aspect of a man.

[Walter]

I think that "son of" is a Hebrew idiom, like 'father of', 'mother of', 'daughter of'.  For example 'father of God' meant pious, 'mother of the arm' meant forearm, 'daughter of' music meant singer.  I believe two of the followers of Jesus were called boanerges - 'sons of thunder' which meant impetuous.  'Son of man' probably referred to the human aspect of a man and 'son of God' to the believed divine aspect of a man.

well I'm glad we got that cleared up 

[ProfessorDavey]

I've only watched the bit about people's names so far.

I've done a bit more delving on the people's names thing and it falls apart.

The argument is that the names in the gospels match to the known most popular names in Palestine at the time - the inference being that there is a clear independent data source to compare to.

Williams gives his source - academic work entitled 'LEXICON OF JEWISH NAMES IN LATE ANTIQUITY, PART 1'.

Indeed this source exists - as luck would have it I've just downloaded a copy (the joys of academic life). The problem for Williams is that the name source for working out the popularity of names for this academic research is ... err ... the bible, including, of course the gospels. So in fact all we have here is a correlation between the popularity of names in the bible with a  paper which looks at the popularity of names largely in the bible.

It would be pretty astonishing if the main data source didn't correlate with ... err ... itself.