Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Spud]

What's your evidence that it was embarrassing to the early Christians?

The testimony of women wasn't generally accepted in Jewish courts.

Did I say it was a conspiracy. It could simply be that Mark wrote the women in and then the other writers copied him, embellishing the story as they saw fit.

You mean Mark's 'young man dressed in white' becomes an angel in Matthew and two angels in Luke?
There are other references to angels as a young man in white, in Acts and the Apocrypha. Besides, I think Matthew was the first to write his account, not Mark.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: Comparing world religions with local religions in the context of ''parochiality'' is as I pointed out highly debatable.

And as I corrected you, not it isn’t. “Global” just extends the range of the Egyptian and Roman pantheons by an infinitesimally small degree compared with the vastness of the universe as a whole.   

2: The parochiality of a religion which proposes the universe created ex nihilo is also highly debatable, that it only deals with humanity, so what.

So everything. If you want to claim universal facts then you have to know what "the universe" is. Religions don’t know that though. The difference between science (that knows some of it) and religions (that know none of it) is that the former limits its claims to its knowledge, whereas the latter don’t.

This seeing the perspective of other species has not been adequately explained by either of you and is probably irrelevent any way.

It’s relevant because a religion concerned only with human needs points to it being human-made.   

3: Since religions of the ''world' type are visionary and revelatory…

Claiming to be “visionary and revelatory” and actually being these things are very different matters. Your mistake here is the unjustified use of “since”. 
 

I'm afraid you boys have been saying they are not visionary or revelatory enough…

No, we’re saying that there’s no good reason to think they’re visionary or revelatory at all. That’s another of your problems. 

…and then you offered your own improvements which as point 2 shows are pointless and pretty meaningless.

What “improvements” do you think anyone’s offered (aside that is from the improvement of explaining that religions shouldn’t make claims they cannot know to be true)?

4: It took a long time for Davey to respond hopefully that is you doing your normal stunt of speaking for others and not him letting you do it.

Lying won’t help you here. You asked me about PD’s posts. If you didn’t want me to comment on them you shouldn’t have asked me about them

Now we could have had a fairly decent exchange but that seems impossible for you.

Yes, it is impossible for me – it’s impossible for me though because you’re entirely unable to construct arguments to justify your claims, you routinely straw man your interlocutors, your always run away when asked questions, and your near-pathological mendacity makes any meaningful exchange beyond reach. Your frequent incoherence and poor literacy don't help much either.     

[Gordon]

Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth.

Which is why I don't believe certain aspects of the Jesus myth are likely to be true.

Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.

It would be myth unless you can confirm that these alleged eyewitness were real people (do you have their birth certificates to hand?), and even then, since you can't exclude the risks of bias, mistake or lies in the 'gospels', then I'd say that the more fantastical aspects  of the 'gospels' (such as dead people not staying dead) are more likely to be myth than not.

[jeremyp]

The testimony of women wasn't generally accepted in Jewish courts.

You've already asserted that (without evidence, I might add) but the gospels are not court documents and their audience was early Christians. Why would an early Christian be embarrassed that the women were the first people to be told of the resurrection? In fact (and here we see a big problem with the criterion of embarrassment), all the evidence from the gospels suggests that this fact was not embarrassing to the early Christians.

You mean Mark's 'young man dressed in white' becomes an angel in Matthew and two angels in Luke?

Actually, it's two men in Luke and two angels in John.

There are other references to angels as a young man in white, in Acts and the Apocrypha. Besides, I think Matthew was the first to write his account, not Mark.

Most people who understand the arguments disagree with you.

[Spud]

Why would an early Christian be embarrassed that the women were the first people to be told of the resurrection? In fact (and here we see a big problem with the criterion of embarrassment), all the evidence from the gospels suggests that this fact was not embarrassing to the early Christians.

Could that be because it was true? If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.

Actually, it's two men in Luke

in clothes that gleamed like lightning - angels

and two angels in John.

[ProfessorDavey]

If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.

Spud - all angels are made up.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is why I don't believe the Icarus myth.

Is that the only reason you don't believe the story of Icarus. Might there also be the notion that it is fantastical and implausible. A bit like a dead person coming back to life.

And once you've gone beyond accounts being contemporaneous it make little difference whether an account appears 200 years after the event (as is the case for extant copies of the gospels) or 500 years. Also note that there is archeological from much, much earlier than Ovid (e.g. 300-400BC) depicting the story of Icarus.

Luke says "many have undertaken to write down the things that have been fulfilled among us", and in my opinion he used Matthew as his main source, and other eyewitnesses. Mark, who used Matthew and Luke, also added extra eyewitness detail, such as names of people. So the gospels are not myth.

So if someone says that it isn't a myth, it makes it not a myth. Laughable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Could that be because it was true?

Technically yes, but only in the sense that the Tooth Fairy could be true too. If you want to argue for angels though, then you have a huge task to define them, to explain their properties, to show how they couldn’t be mistaken for something else etc. Come to think of it, the Tooth Fairy might be easier to establish.

If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.

Or they might not. Or anything. When you introduce “angels” into the conversation (apparently with a straight face) then anything at all might be.

in clothes that gleamed like lightning - angels

Have you ever been in Ilford High St on a Saturday afternoon? It’s full of “clothes that gleam like lightning” – I used to think it was teenage girls in shell suits, but now I know they’re angels   

Does the Grand Canyon-size leap you’ve made from shiny clothing to “therefore an angel” not trouble you at all? 

[Spud]

Two main points here: Luke says "the things that have been fulfilled among us indicating that the first written account was written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. This is different from myth, which develops over centuries.
 
Secondly, we cannot eliminate the risks in the modern sense of having recorded evidence of the miracles. But the accounts do satisfy criteria which we would apply to any historical account, so that the miracles can't be disproved. I guess then it comes down to whether one accepts the existence of God, from which the possibility of miracles follows.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But the accounts do satisfy criteria which we would apply to any historical account...

No, they absolutely do not. Not even close. If you want to apply to these stories the tests of historicity you have an enormous task ahead of you first to establish even your initial premises, let alone to demonstrate that the events as written reliably happened.

Just out of interest by the way, if you really believe what you said how would you explain the fact that worldwide these stories aren't taught by professors and teachers in history lessons - do you suppose there was some sort of grand conspiracy of historians who met in secret one day and agreed that the tests of historicity were met but they were going to keep it all schtum nonetheless in their lecture halls and classrooms? What?

[jeremyp]

Could that be because it was true? If the angels were made up then the authors might have had men seeing them too.

Let's just concentrate on Mark, because in Mark's story, nothing supernatural happens. We can both agree that it describes events that could have happened. i.e. the women go to the tomb. Jesus' body is gone. A man there tells them that he rose from the dead. We all not agree on why Jesus' body was missing, but we can ignore that for the purpose of this discussion.

I can think of a couple of reasons why Mark would write that the people who discovered the body missing were women:

1. he is describing events that actually happened.

2. he wants to make the narrative as plausible as possible.

In the latter case, he needs a reason for people to go to the tomb. He chooses preparing the body for burial as his reason and once he has done that, the people in question would have to be women because it would be implausible that it would be men doing that kind of work.

The criterion of embarrassment doesn't work because we don't know what the early Christians were embarrassed about. The only way we can tell is by seeing what they wrote about and assuming the what they wrote about are the things they are not embarrassed about. That includes women discovering the resurrection first.

There's also another point about the criterion of embarrassment. If you are fabricating a story, it adds credibility to put in some details that are embarrassing. People assume that, if you are making stuff up, you wouldn't put embarrassing details in, so to convince them you are not making it up, put embarrassing details in.

[BeRational]

A double bluff kind of thing?

[Spud]

There's also another point about the criterion of embarrassment. If you are fabricating a story, it adds credibility to put in some details that are embarrassing. People assume that, if you are making stuff up, you wouldn't put embarrassing details in, so to convince them you are not making it up, put embarrassing details in.

This is true. But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that than that they would. Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.

[BeRational]

This is true. But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that. Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.

How do you know that?

[Spud]

How do you know that?

I don't, I'm suggesting it: most people probably wouldn't be clever enough to double bluff over a number of different criteria.

[Gordon]

But on balance it is more likely that they wouldn't have put embarrassing details in, because it's more probable that they wouldn't think of doing that than that they would.

On what basis can you conclude that? Are you saying that these early Christians were incapable of thinking about indulging in a spot of scheming in support of their cause?

Likewise, they could have made sure some of their detail contradicted each others' accounts so as to make it look like they didn't harmonize them. But it's more probable that they weren't clever enough to do that and include embarrassing details -etc. etc.

So they weren't very bright then: in which case it is surprising that you set so much store by what these not "clever enough" people allegedly reported.

You remind me of someone who, when out of their depth in stormy waters, decides that the best course of action is to seek out a concrete lifebelt. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.

How many of the gospels were primarily aimed at Jewish audiences Spud. If not aimed at Jewish audiences the notion that women could not give evidence in Jewish law is entirely irrelevant to the criterion of embarrassment.

[Spud]

Oh dear, oh dear.

How could Mark have added extra eyewitness detail? His gospel is significantly shorter than the other two.

I'm not sure if you mean "how could he have added it, since he wrote after the others" or "how could he have added it, since that would have made it longer (assuming he was third to write)". Although shorter, some sections are longer than the corresponding ones in Mat/Luke.

As we have discussed before, it is highly probable that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied him whilst adding extra detail (not from eye witnesses though).

Here's another example of why I disagree:

Mat. 15:1-4
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:1-13
Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Notice the blue highlighted sections, and how the thought process is smooth in Matthew but interrupted in Mark. Which is secondary?

As an exercise, why don't you find some examples of alleged eye witness testimony in the gospels and explain to us how you know they are eye witness testimony.

Because if I do you will just say, "well, fiction writers can make up detail too"! 

[ProfessorDavey]

Notice the blue highlighted sections, and how the thought process is smooth in Matthew but interrupted in Mark. Which is secondary?

Well the general thought in textual analysis of ancient texts is that the less smooth, more 'clunky' text is more likely to be earlier. This is on the basis that over time later authors and copyists will tend to edit out the clunkiness and create a more coherent narrative.

So as far as textual analysis is concerned your examples suggest that Mark is earlier than Matthew, as per standard thought and opinion.

[Spud]

Well the general thought in textual analysis of ancient texts is that the less smooth, more 'clunky' text is more likely to be earlier. This is on the basis that over time later authors and copyists will tend to edit out the clunkiness and create a more coherent narrative.

So as far as textual analysis is concerned your examples suggest that Mark is earlier than Matthew, as per standard thought and opinion.

The writing skills of each author would be more relevant, imo. Back in the days before computers, we had to compose whole sentences in our heads before writing, to avoid having to use tip-ex or cross words out. Matthew being a tax collector would have had this skill, and it's demonstrated in the blue highlighted sentences, which follow one from the other perfectly. Mark, writing for Gentiles, had to explain Jewish customs and lost the flow of Matthew's thought progression. You also have to think about the origin of the story. Someone with an extremely sharp mind had that discussion with the Pharisees, and Matthew seems to record it word for word.

[ProfessorDavey]

The writing skills of each author would be more relevant, imo. Back in the days before computers, we had to compose whole sentences in our heads before writing, to avoid having to use tip-ex or cross words out.

But we have no idea how the gospels were ultimately written down - and without doubt the version we have are many generation copies. So there are those that suggest that the author actually wrote the piece, others that he kind of dictated it to others who wrote it down. It is also completely unclear whether the original ever even existed - in other words a single version that was then copied as it was common to write several versions at the outset, which may have been different to each other. So the writing skills of the original author is pretty well irrelevant as a argument as we have no idea what the original looked like.

Matthew being a tax collector would have had this skill, and it's demonstrated in the blue highlighted sentences, which follow one from the other perfectly. Mark, writing for Gentiles, had to explain Jewish customs and lost the flow of Matthew's thought progression. You also have to think about the origin of the story. Someone with an extremely sharp mind had that discussion with the Pharisees, and Matthew seems to record it word for word.

No-one knows who wrote the gospels - while there are traditions, they are just that - traditions and not based on any credible evidence. So to assert that the author of Matthew was a tax collector is unevidenced speculation.

Rather than make up stuff - why not actually base your arguments on evidence and textual analysis, which suggests that Mark came first (albeit in all cases we don't actually have extant versions of the text for at least a century after they were supposed to have been originally written).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The writing skills of each author would be more relevant, imo. Back in the days before computers, we had to compose whole sentences in our heads before writing, to avoid having to use tip-ex or cross words out. Matthew being a tax collector would have had this skill, and it's demonstrated in the blue highlighted sentences, which follow one from the other perfectly. Mark, writing for Gentiles, had to explain Jewish customs and lost the flow of Matthew's thought progression. You also have to think about the origin of the story. Someone with an extremely sharp mind had that discussion with the Pharisees, and Matthew seems to record it word for word.

That you are quibling over textual analysis which establishes which came first on one hand and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document shows that even where your argument encompasses history and the study of history, Your challenge is conflicted and contradictory.

Your overall argument is still based on unbelief based on turn repeatability and of course philosophical empiricism.

[ProfessorDavey]

That you are quibling over textual analysis which establishes which came first on one hand and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document shows that even where your argument encompasses history and the study of history, Your challenge is conflicted and contradictory.

Your overall argument is still based on unbelief based on turn repeatability and of course philosophical empiricism.

You do realise that you have addressed this point to your co-religionist Spud.

And I would agree, his approach is entirely based on special pleading, circular arguments and belief rather than evidence. It is indeed conflicted and contradictory.

If one takes an even-handed approach based on evidence and historicity then the fantastical claims in the gospels crumble to dust. Whether the non-fantastical claims are true or not is neither here nor there as they amount to nothing more than the story of a religious preacher carrying out his work, which was as commonplace as mud in those days. Of course there is precious little evidence that any of those claims are actually true due to the complete paucity of corroborative evidence, whether narrative or archeological. Plus that the claims only appear in a form we can study hundreds of years later. But realistically that is of no great interest as in a broad historical (let alone a theological) sense it is largely irrelevant whether a 1stC preacher travelled to location X on day Y. These claims are totally unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable today and it is irrelevant whether he did, or he didn't beyond a vague interest in the diary commitments of a 1stC preacher. They tell us nothing about the fantastical claims any more than the notion that many of the London locations described in the Harry Potter books are demonstrably real might suggest that the fantastical claims in those books are therefore true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

…and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document…

Neither PD nor anyone else here has done that.

What has been said though is that the existence of old documents does not of itself make their contents true. To assess reliability various tests of historicity are applied, which is why gospel miracle stories aren’t taught in history lessons – such claims fail those tests. 

Your overall argument is still based on unbelief based on turn repeatability and of course philosophical empiricism.

Even if we allow for a moment your personal redefinition of the term “philosophical materialism” (by which presumably you actually mean physicalism) do you not think that approach is likely to give more reliable results than the epistemological fuck all-ism of religious “faith”?

If not, why not?

[Spud]

As an exercise, why don't you find some examples of alleged eye witness testimony in the gospels and explain to us how you know they are eye witness testimony.

Someone who saw the young man who fled in the garden of Gethsemane. To quote "Who Moved the Stone?" -

And if there is one thing that clinches and confirms the veracity of the narrative it is surely that curiously irrelevant incident of the young man whose cloak was snatched from him in the struggle and who fled naked into the night. Why should we be told anything about this man except for the weighty and sufficient reason that the thing happened? The retreating figure of this naked youth is clearly one of the ineffaceable impressions of a dramatic five minutes that remained engraven deeply in the memory of everyone present.