Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Gordon]

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

Spud

You really are incredibly gullible: assuming for now that a gathering took place in the garden of Gethsemane.

1. How do you know this aspect of the narrative is actually true.

2. Lots of authors add background details to their stories to add variety.

3. Even of this young man was there, so what? It makes no difference to a claim of dead people not staying dead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Neither PD nor anyone else here has done that.

Of course he has, If one says you cannot rely on a document dated 200 years after the event then what have you left? If you imply that that is true and appeal to a document 500 years older than the event then you are being inconsistent,

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course he has, If one says you cannot rely on a document dated 200 years after the event then what have you left? If you imply that that is true and appeal to a document 500 years older than the event then you are being inconsistent,

That’s not what you said though. What you said was: “…and dismissing history altogether on the grounds of age of extant document…”.

No-one “dismisses history altogether” because the records are old. If people did that there’s be no history. What he (and others) actually says is that the greater the distance in time from the supposed event to its being written down, the greater the opportunities for mistakes (and worse) to enter the story. That’s why tests of historicity have to be applied to evaluate how reliable the records are likely to be. 

Do you get it now?   

[jeremyp]

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.

Either way, the criterion of embarrassment is incoherent because

a) there are motives to put embarrassing details in

b) we have no way to tell what was embarrassing to the early Christians except by looking at their writings which are the very things you claim are embarrassing .

[jeremyp]

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

No I won't. In all probability you'll come up with a passage and I'll ask you what makes you so sure it's eye witness detail and you won't have an answer to that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



No-one “dismisses history altogether” because the records are old.

Oh just for the most part, then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh just for the most part, then.

Wrong again. Written accounts are not accepted as reliable when they fail the tests of historicity. No more, no less. You should know this by now, and you should know by now too that these tests aren't specific to your faith. They apply equally to any written accounts, as they must if there's to be a method not to accept everythng that's written at face value.

Oh, and you owe the Prof an apology too for misrepresenting him so egregiously.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh, and you owe the Prof an apology too for misrepresenting him so egregiously.   

Indeed he does as I have never said and nor do I believe that historical evidence written some time after the event, or where the earliest extant version is from well after the event is of no value.

Rather I have said that a whole range of issues need to be taken into account when determining, from a historicity perspective, whether a document provides strong or weak evidence. The problem with the gospels isn't merely that we don't have extant versions until hundreds of years after the event. It is compounded by a range of factors, for example:

1. the likely number of copying events from the original to the extant version
2. the complete paucity of corroborating evidence from independent (and ideally non-partial) sources - being both narrative and/or also archeological
3. the bias and agenda of the likely authors - again linked to the lack of corroborative evidence ideally from people who are either neutral or oppositely biased.
4. that the extant gospel versions we have are the product of a selection process aimed at creating an orthodoxy of view from by believers
5. that they are unlikely to have been written for the purpose of recording historical event, rather they are theological documents.
6. that we have clear evidence from the extant version that we have of edits and interpolations aimed at fitting the narrative to the agenda - e.g. the end of Mark
7. that we have no idea who the authors actually were (beyond being believers writing with an agenda)

And that's before you add fantastical nature of many of the key claims, which are physiologically implausible.

So it isn't jus the age that is an issue, but all these other points to, which is why the gospels are not considered to be historical documents studied as history, but religious documents studied as theology.

[jeremyp]

Vlad,

Wrong again. Written accounts are not accepted as reliable when they fail the tests of historicity. No more, no less. You should know this by now, and you should know by now too that these tests aren't specific to your faith. They apply equally to any written accounts, as they must if there's to be a method not to accept everythng that's written at face value.

Oh, and you owe the Prof an apology too for misrepresenting him so egregiously.   

Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:

1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?

6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

So let's apply these to Mark's gospel

1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.

2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.

3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.

4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.

5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.

6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.

7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.

9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.

Mark strikes out on every single criterion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:

1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?

6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

So let's apply these to Mark's gospel

1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.

2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.

3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.

4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.

5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.

6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.

7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.

9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.

Mark strikes out on every single criterion.

Spot on.

And one further thing to add on 9 - many of the earliest extant fragments are just that, small fragments, so very difficult to gain a real understanding of the text and certainly not the overall narrative.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:

1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?

6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

So let's apply these to Mark's gospel

1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.

2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.

3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.

4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.

5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.

6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.

7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.

9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.

Mark strikes out on every single criterion.

Well, yes - but apart from all that though? 

Incidentally, somewhat depressingly when I googled "tests of historictiy" a bunch of religious sites came up that said things like, "As Dr William Lane Craig confirms, the Gospels pass the tests of historicity with flying colours" and they're the same tests!

It's bizarre.

[Spud]

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.
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).

Wouldn't the person writing down the original conversation earlier in time be expected to reproduce it more accurately? And the version of the conversation that is less similar to the original would have been written later on.

Might your theory depend on the conversation being fictitious?
In other words, how could a non-eyewitness author, writing later on, come up with a more logical reproduction of a conversation that actually took place?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

Well, yes - but apart from all that though? 

I hear talking about women was embarrassing, so that overrides all of the above.

Incidentally, somewhat depressingly when I googled "tests of historictiy" a bunch of religious sites came up that said things like, "As Dr William Lane Craig confirms, the Gospels pass the tests of historicity with flying colours" and they're the same tests!

It's bizarre.

I wouldn't trust WLC as far as I could throw him. He talks a good talk and he has a veneer of respectable scholarship, but it doesn't take much to debunk pretty much every argument he makes. I think he's what you might call a cargo cult scholar.

[jeremyp]

Wouldn't the person writing down the original conversation earlier in time be expected to reproduce it more accurately? And the version of the conversation that is less similar to the original would have been written later on.

Might your theory depend on the conversation being fictitious?
In other words, how could a non-eyewitness author, writing later on, come up with a more logical reproduction of a conversation that actually took place?

So who was the eye witness who told the gospel authors about Jesus'  trial before Pilate? Who was the eye witness to Jesus praying alone in the Garden of Gethsemene. If the women at the tomb never told anybody about what happened, as Mark states, how do we know what happened?

[ProfessorDavey]

Wouldn't the person writing down the original conversation ...

Let's just stop there shall we.

In the case of the gospel claims, who exactly were the eye witnesses upon whose testimony the claims therein are based. And even if we knew who these people were (we don't) do you really think they wrote down their testimony. That is exceptionally unlikely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:

1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?

6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

So let's apply these to Mark's gospel

1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.

2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.

3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.

4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.

5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.

6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.

7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.

9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.

Mark strikes out on every single criterion.

Have you applied this to Pliny or any other historical records?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spot on.
.

Really? have you taken account of Jeremy's point number 8?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:


7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

I know there is an argument that miracles don't happen part of which is that one can always invoke aliens or ''extremely improbable but totally natural things'' happening but ''Good evidence?''.

I would caution ''We don't usually if ever see them'' as good evidence because that might mean you are not describing an actual miracle, that flim flam preachers claim to conjur them regularly notwithstanding.

[ProfessorDavey]

Really? have you taken account of Jeremy's point number 8?

Yes I have. And what this means is that in the absence of an original document, and in the case of the gospels anything close to original, you need to assess carefully, using the approaches of historicity, other evidence that may strengthen or weaken the case for the document to be considered a credible source in historical terms. In other words point 8 links to the other points. In the case of the gospels the other points are found to be lacking and combined with the lack of an original, or close to original document, then the gospels can (and are) considered to be exceptionally limited as historical documents. That doesn't detract from their importance to believers as theological documents, but theology and historicity aren't the same thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I have. And what this means is that in the absence of an original document, and in the case of the gospels anything close to original, you need to assess carefully, using the approaches of historicity, other evidence that may strengthen or weaken the case for the document to be considered a credible source in historical terms. In other words point 8 links to the other points. In the case of the gospels the other points are found to be lacking and combined with the lack of an original, or close to original document, then the gospels can (and are) considered to be exceptionally limited as historical documents. That doesn't detract from their importance to believers as theological documents, but theology and historicity aren't the same thing.

You obviously haven't taken note of this because you are still suggesting that the problem only seems to apply to some documentation. This is because you are flip flopping between some general standard(eg Jeremy's standards gleaned from the internet include the use of photographic media) and ancient historical study methods as suits your case. As point number 8 of Jeremy's shows us , all ancient documents are affected. The thing is you do not seem to be applying that consistently. Why not therefore own up and say you don't believe it chiefly on other grounds? Jeremy's point 7 for instance. Here Jeremy says that miracles have all the evidence against them. Miracles don't happen. I could steer him to any number of what are known as christian cessessionists who would agree that you will never see a miracle because that age has passed. Jeremy though is using the present to describe the past and that doesn't sound much like history to me

What you seem to be doing also is undermining the work of all ancient Historians who work with this material on a daily basis.

[jeremyp]

Have you applied this to Pliny or any other historical records?

Let's apply it to Caesar's Gallic Wars shall we (since Christians sometimes claim there's more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar).

1. Yes

2. Julius Caesar was an eye witness to the events he was describing. Gallic Wars was written as propaganda though.

3. Yes

4. Not sure but a lot of the events of Caesar's life are attested to by other contemporary writers e.g. Cicero.

5. Gaul was clearly conquered by Rome. There is archaeological and documentary evidence that attests to this fact.

6. I don't know. In all likelihood there are some discrepancies.

7. No

8. The original is lost. We only have copies.

9. Not applicable - we don't have the original.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's apply it to Caesar's Gallic Wars shall we (since Christians sometimes claim there's more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar).

1. Yes

2. Julius Caesar was an eye witness to the events he was describing. Gallic Wars was written as propaganda though.

3. Yes

4. Not sure but a lot of the events of Caesar's life are attested to by other contemporary writers e.g. Cicero.

5. Gaul was clearly conquered by Rome. There is archaeological and documentary evidence that attests to this fact.

6. I don't know. In all likelihood there are some discrepancies.

7. No

8. The original is lost. We only have copies.

9. Not applicable - we don't have the original.

Gallic wars were fought....and there was an early christian community.

[ProfessorDavey]

You obviously haven't taken note of this because you are still suggesting that the problem only seems to apply to some documentation.

Nope - it applies to all documentation. Some will be just as lacking as the gospels, others will be much stronger in the categories that Jeremy P outlines. So for example if we have a document describing a military campaign from the perspective of one side, we may have corroborative evidence from another source from that side, or better still from the other side. They may well disagree on details (and may be tainted by agenda and propaganda, just as the gospels are) but the combination of sources provides a thread of consistent narrative.

And further we may have archeological evidence - for example sites where the armies were based with all sorts of artefacts that confirms their presence and dating.

And so on, and so on.

[ProfessorDavey]

What you seem to be doing also is undermining the work of all ancient Historians who work with this material on a daily basis.

On the contrary - Jeremy and I are supporting the work of ancient historians who are dealing with this kind of material on a daily basis and therefore spend a lot of their time determining the value of individual source material, prior to drawing conclusions about what it actually says. Unless you do that you will treat materials that fail the historicity tests as just as valuable as those that pass them. That would be incredibly poor scholarship, but something you want to advocate.

And there is a further point - many documents make all sorts of points and claims. The tests of historicity need to be applied in a sophisticated manner to details. So we may accept one aspects as being sound from a historicity point of view but reject another. Now I've never read the Gallic wars, but suppose it makes some broad claims about the Romans being in Gall and engaging in a campaign against the local populace. But elsewhere makes a very specific claim that Julius Caesar told his Generals that they would all be hugely rewarded if they were victorious and another claim that he always eat smoked fish on the eve of battle.

Now there might be substantial corroborative evidence for the first claim (narrative from other Roman or Gallic sources and archeological) so we might accept that element in historicity sense. There might be evidence to support the promotion of the Generals from other sources, so again might be accepted. But there may be none for the smoked fish - in which case this would be rejected. If might provide some nice colour and detail to the story but there is no evidence to support its veracity.

But you then need to broaden the objective of the study - the key point here would be about the overall Gallic campaign and the promotion of generals might be of major historical interest. However the food preferences of Caesar is pretty well irrelevant to the importance in a historical context, so whether we accept or reject it is fairly irrelevant.

The problem for christianity is that it is entirely based on claims akin to the eating fish - unsubstantiated and with hindsight unsubstantiatable.

[jeremyp]

Yes I have. And what this means is that in the absence of an original document, and in the case of the gospels anything close to original, you need to assess carefully, using the approaches of historicity, other evidence that may strengthen or weaken the case for the document to be considered a credible source in historical terms. In other words point 8 links to the other points. In the case of the gospels the other points are found to be lacking and combined with the lack of an original, or close to original document, then the gospels can (and are) considered to be exceptionally limited as historical documents. That doesn't detract from their importance to believers as theological documents, but theology and historicity aren't the same thing.

It's a minor point though. If we found the original of Mark's Gospel (I'm assuming there is a way to verify that) and it could be dated to around 70CE give or take five years (as per the most popular dating), it really wouldn't help the Christian case very much at all. It would still be an anonymous document derived from unknown oral sources. You'd need to discover documentary evidence of its provenance to have any significant impact on its lack of historicity.