New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Gordon]

He hasn't answered yet, but I think he means statistically significant.

If so, I'd love to see his workings-out.

[Spud]

as in the ITV long running drama Coronation Street

( which I thought was a documentary for many years ) 😉

And the Blackberry Farm series, in which there is a duck called Walter.

[Spud]

If so, I'd love to see his workings-out.

You can say that Josephus and the gospels correlate with the ossuaries and dead sea scrolls.

[Gordon]

You can say that Josephus and the gospels correlate with the ossuaries and dead sea scrolls.

Spud

Correlation is a measure of association between two variables, expressed as a value between 1 and -1, and of course you need the calculation of random chance - so what are your workings out/methods.

Unless of course by 'correlation' you mean something other than statistical correlation.

[Spud]

Oh, cummon! This instance of 'Son of Man' is just another colloquial use of the phrase in Hebrew and Aramaic. It means nothing more than 'human being', Joe Bloggs, John Doe etc. There's nothing special about it. Jesus' use of it is obviously two-fold, and neither have anything to do with Ezekiel. One is an Aramaic colloquialism, the other refers to the passage in Daniel, which simply says that "one like a Son of Man" ,whoever this judgmental figure "appearing in the clouds" might be, bore the appearance of a human.

If one use (Matthew 24) can be a reference to Daniel 7:13, why can't another be a reference to Ezekiel, who went to Jerusalem with a message of destruction, and brought it about.

[Spud]

Let me get this straight: you doubt that an author creating an account that they want to be convincing (whether it is true or not) couldn't also ensure that any names used were convincing in relation to the context of the story?

Really!!

Those names also had to fit into the context of the culture of the time and place in question.

[Walter]

And the Blackberry Farm series, in which there is a duck called Walter.

well it must be true then 👍

[Spud]

I seem to recall that one of the signs that someone is lying is that they embellish otherwise unimportant elements of the tale, and sell short the focal issues - having precised details of exact names of individuals might be considered to be an example of trying to hard to establish authenticity...

O.

Take the list of 12 disciples. All the common names are disambiguated, the four uncommon ones (Philip, BArtholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus) aren't.

2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Does this look like the author is distinguishing those that needed it, or that he is trying too hard to make it look authentic?

[Spud]

Spud

Correlation is a measure of association between two variables, expressed as a value between 1 and -1, and of course you need the calculation of random chance - so what are your workings out/methods.

Unless of course by 'correlation' you mean something other than statistical correlation.

You need to read the table at 8.45. The name Simon occurs more times in the Ossuaries and DSS than any other name. It also occurs the most in the NT and Josephus.

[Gordon]

Those names also had to fit into the context of the culture of the time and place in question.

So what?

It would be trivial for someone writing a narrative about events in, say, deepest Greenock to use names common to that area - where 'Andrew' would be more likely that, say, 'Athelstan' - since to use unusual names would probably be less credible.

That doesn't exclude there being anyone called Athelestan in Greenock, but if I was writing a story about Greenockians I'd tend to avoid that particular name (but I will ask a native to confirm this).
 

[Gordon]

You need to read the table at 8.45. The name Simon occurs more times in the Ossuaries and DSS than any other name. It also occurs the most in the NT and Josephus.

So what?

You can calculate correlation using frequency counts - so did you?

[Nearly Sane]

So what?

It would be trivial for someone writing a narrative about events in, say, deepest Greenock to use names common to that area - where 'Andrew' would be more likely that, say, 'Athelstan' - since to use unusual names would probably be less credible.

That doesn't exclude there being anyone called Athelestan in Greenock, but if I was writing a story about Greenockians I'd tend to avoid that particular name (but I will ask a native to confirm this).
 

I knew a Constantine and an Elvis, no Athelstans

[Spud]

Ok, it seems the number of instances of NT names in the list is mostly quite low:  2 or 1per name. So the correlation may not be significant. But the point about disambiguating the names that we know from the other sources were common, is still relevant, as in the example of the list of 12 disciples.

So what?

It would be trivial for someone writing a narrative about events in, say, deepest Greenock to use names common to that area - where 'Andrew' would be more likely that, say, 'Athelstan' - since to use unusual names would probably be less credible.

That doesn't exclude there being anyone called Athelestan in Greenock, but if I was writing a story about Greenockians I'd tend to avoid that particular name (but I will ask a native to confirm this).
 

But writing in England, 40 years later, I wouldn't have a clue which name was more popular in Greenock.

[Walter]

I knew a Constantine and an Elvis, no Athelstans

Athelstan works down the chip shop , Saney !

[Gordon]

Ok, it seems the number of instances of NT names in the list is mostly quite low:  2 or 1per name. So the correlation may not be significant. But the point about disambiguating the names that we know from the other sources were common, is still relevant, as in the example of the list of 12 disciples.

So we needn't worry about correlation or statistical significance - I think you are over-reaching as regards corruptions of names: for example, I'm sure your parents didn't name you 'Spud', but we here all know that when a 'Spud' is mentioned it refers to you and not a randomly selected potato enthusiast. 

But writing in England, 40 years later, I wouldn't have a clue which name was more popular in Greenock.

Then do visit Greenock: and then pop along to Glasgow where these is a pub that is regularly visited by 3 wise men (how seasonal is that!).

[Gordon]

Athelstan works down the chip shop , Saney !

No - that's definitely Elvis.

[ippy]

You need to read the table at 8.45. The name Simon occurs more times in the Ossuaries and DSS than any other name. It also occurs the most in the NT and Josephus.

This line of thought is about as useful as close in depth study of used teabags, in fact the teabag study might show a bit more promise due to the fact at least we would have the teabags to hand and be able to study something that's actually self evident.

By the way I've been using the Sparks teabags lately the ones that come in a gold coloured box absolutely super duper tea, I would recommend them.

There you go another one, trying to make a serious post out of nonsense?

Regards, ippy. 

[ProfessorDavey]

He does state that it's not conclusive proof.

But it isn't proof of anything, let along conclusive proof.

Simon is a common name in the NT (8 people) and is common in the extra-NT sources.

So what - all that indicates is that those people who wrote the gospels had some link, probably second, third of fourth hand to people living in Palestine at the time and who were aware of the kinds of names that existed there and places, geography etc. No-one denies that. It provides no evidence that the stories in the bible represent eye witness accounts, and certainly doesn't provide any evidence that the miracles were true.

[ProfessorDavey]

He does state that it's not conclusive proof.

Addressed this one in my last post.

Spud - would you now like to address the elephant in the room please. To quote:

'And there is, of course, the elephant in the room. Williams argument is all about the credibility of eye witnesses. So using his argument that because they were right about trees and names etc their witness of miracles must be correct too why on earth didn't those eye witnesses (the people in that time and place) accept the miracles, which we know they didn't as Christianity failed to gain a foothold in that time and place. The actual eye witnesses, the people around at the time (by and large) rejected the claims in the gospels. Had they accepted them they would have surely have rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity - but they didn't.

And Christianity is alone amongst the major religions in failing to persuade those about in the time and place of its forming that their religion was correct.'

And Williams use of the feeding of the 5,000 is a fantastic example of that. Note too that I think in the gospels 5000 is only the men, so perhaps double that number were (if you believe the gospels) direct eye witnesses to an incredible miracle. Assume each told another 4 people about this amazing thing they had witnesses. So straight away you'd have 50,000 people who are either direct witnesses or told first hand by a direct witness. And that's jus tone 'miracle' - as Williams states there are countless purported miracles.

Given this - surely, if what was claimed was actually witnesses by the people, the developing Christianity would have spread like wildfire. But it didn't - it failed to take a foothold amongst the people there in the place and time. So in effect those eye witnesses, by and large, rejected the claims of Jesus despite all these 'miracles' they'd witnessed. So either they were bizarrely unimpressed by incredible 'miracles' which seems totally implausible if they'd actually seen them as claimed. Or, of course, they didn't witness anything of the sort - the miracles as claimed in the gospels never happened.

[ProfessorDavey]

You miss a second point he makes: the disambiguation of common names is not just for intratextual clarification. It occurs in dialogue where there are lots of people present. When blind Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus and a crowd is present, he adds Son of David. If the author made it up, he was clever enough to anticipate that there were possibly other people called Jesus in the crowd, and that in real life the man would have added something to distinguish Jesus from any others with that name. Not just in this example, but this happens in every similar situation recorded. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect an author who invented the story to think to do this.

The author would have referred to him as Son of David to ensure that his intended readers were reminded that Jesus fulfilled old testament prophecies. Pretty well all of the additional titles attributed to him in the gospels are emphasising his importance e.g.:

Christ
Lord
Master
Logos (the Word)
Son of God
Son of man
Son of David
Lamb of God
New Adam / Second Adam / Last Adam
Light of the World
King of the Jews

None of these are the equivalent of Simon the Tanner are they.

[Spud]

But it isn't proof of anything, let along conclusive proof.
So what - all that indicates is that those people who wrote the gospels had some link, probably second, third of fourth hand to people living in Palestine at the time and who were aware of the kinds of names that existed there and places, geography etc. No-one denies that. It provides no evidence that the stories in the bible represent eye witness accounts, and certainly doesn't provide any evidence that the miracles were true.

Hi Prof, thanks for helping me study the lecture, always good to have other opinions.

Your previous point about distinguishing one Simon from another Simon within the same gospel may render the whole attempt to correlate names with other sources a bit redundant. What it does indicate though is that the authors were not incompetent. To be able to remember and disambiguate someone's name shows competence. Still, it doesn't rule out fiction.

The author would have referred to him as Son of David to ensure that his intended readers were reminded that Jesus fulfilled old testament prophecies. Pretty well all of the additional titles attributed to him in the gospels are emphasising his importance e.g.:

Christ
Lord
Master
Logos (the Word)
Son of God
Son of man
Son of David
Lamb of God
New Adam / Second Adam / Last Adam
Light of the World
King of the Jews

None of these are the equivalent of Simon the Tanner are they.

You can't rule out that the blind man did indeed call out, Jesus Son of David. All three Synoptics record this. The man may have perceived that Jesus was the fulfillment of God's promise to David.

Mark tells us the names of Simon of Cyrene's two sons. This could indicate that the two sons were able to verify the event described.

[Spud]

Then do visit Greenock: and then pop along to Glasgow where these is a pub that is regularly visited by 3 wise men (how seasonal is that!).

I may do one day - will come by camel. I may need a star to follow though.

[Spud]

Addressed this one in my last post.

Spud - would you now like to address the elephant in the room please. To quote:

'And there is, of course, the elephant in the room. Williams argument is all about the credibility of eye witnesses. So using his argument that because they were right about trees and names etc their witness of miracles must be correct too why on earth didn't those eye witnesses (the people in that time and place) accept the miracles, which we know they didn't as Christianity failed to gain a foothold in that time and place. The actual eye witnesses, the people around at the time (by and large) rejected the claims in the gospels. Had they accepted them they would have surely have rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity - but they didn't.

And Christianity is alone amongst the major religions in failing to persuade those about in the time and place of its forming that their religion was correct.'

And Williams use of the feeding of the 5,000 is a fantastic example of that. Note too that I think in the gospels 5000 is only the men, so perhaps double that number were (if you believe the gospels) direct eye witnesses to an incredible miracle. Assume each told another 4 people about this amazing thing they had witnesses. So straight away you'd have 50,000 people who are either direct witnesses or told first hand by a direct witness. And that's jus tone 'miracle' - as Williams states there are countless purported miracles.

Given this - surely, if what was claimed was actually witnesses by the people, the developing Christianity would have spread like wildfire. But it didn't - it failed to take a foothold amongst the people there in the place and time. So in effect those eye witnesses, by and large, rejected the claims of Jesus despite all these 'miracles' they'd witnessed. So either they were bizarrely unimpressed by incredible 'miracles' which seems totally implausible if they'd actually seen them as claimed. Or, of course, they didn't witness anything of the sort - the miracles as claimed in the gospels never happened.

You haven't factored in the reaction to Jesus from the religious leaders, who weren't just in Israel but the diaspora too, so a lot of converts soon renounced their faith because of persecution. There was also the Neronic persecution.

[ProfessorDavey]

You haven't factored in the reaction to Jesus from the religious leaders, who weren't just in Israel but the diaspora too, so a lot of converts soon renounced their faith because of persecution. There was also the Neronic persecution.

But surely with so many miracles and so many witnesses the religious leaders would also be amongst those eye witnesses or receive first hand testimony. And given that much of what is suggested aligned with classic jewish prophecy why wouldn't they too have accepted Jesus given such overwhelming evidence of eye witness miraculous occurrence.

And even if they were resistant the strength of numbers (tens of thousands) of eye witnesses would easily be sufficient to embed the new religion where it arose - just as occurred for all the other major religions which gained initial traction and a foothold where they arose and supplanted the existing religious cultures that were previously prevalent in that area.

It simply beggars believe that were the stories in the gospels true and were witnesses by the numbers claimed that these people would have failed to follow Jesus, which by and large they didn't. The miraculous claims and their hyperbole is in fact the biggest achilles heal of the whole story.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your previous point about distinguishing one Simon from another Simon within the same gospel may render the whole attempt to correlate names with other sources a bit redundant. What it does indicate though is that the authors were not incompetent. To be able to remember and disambiguate someone's name shows competence. Still, it doesn't rule out fiction.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the authors of the gospels were incompetent - quite the reverse. But they may have been incredible competent in telling exaggerated stories in a highly compelling manner. That seems the most likely explanation as the people who were around at the time and place (the actual eye witnesses) failed, by and large, to accept Jesus. Yet those who received the stories only through the lens of later, not contemporaneous, second, third etc-hand story-tellers were able to persuade people.

If I wanted to know whether something was true without objective evidence I'd want to know whether the people around at the time, the eye witnesses, believed it. And in this case they didn't. Their lack of belief in the stories really holes the gospels below the water line as far as I'm concerned.