Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[jeremyp]

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

Nobody seriously disputes the existence of the early Christian communities (plural used deliberately). We are talking about the historicity of the gospels i.e. can they be relied upon as an accurate account of Jesus' life. I think the answer is a clear no.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody seriously disputes the existence of the early Christian communities (plural used deliberately). We are talking about the historicity of the gospels i.e. can they be relied upon as an accurate account of Jesus' life. I think the answer is a clear no.

I agree on both counts.

Indeed pretty well the only non-christian corroborative evidence we have is neither contemporaneous (being from decades later, with extant version much later still) and largely just tells us that there were christian communities about at that point (which we already know). They tell us virtually nothing about Jesus' life and that which they do tell us is largely just a reiteration of what the christian communities believed (i.e. put to death by Pilot). There are some further elements that are clearly later christian interpolations - this is a further point to be added to the validity of documents, the possibility of later amendment with an agenda. We see this most obviously with Josephus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody seriously disputes the existence of the early Christian communities (plural used deliberately). We are talking about the historicity of the gospels i.e. can they be relied upon as an accurate account of Jesus' life. I think the answer is a clear no.

The question is then demonstrating inaccuracy in terms of where or how and also applying the principle to other documentation.....This is what I take as consistency.

Or of course this is the point where you can depart from Historical method and say ''well this isn't my proposition in other words the bible is not an accurate account of Jesus life, I can say that but I don't need to justify it.''

To me there can be no gaps in history, if you are saying this is inaccurate then History must have gone another way...what then is that way?

Two more points. In your treatment of the Gallic wars you make a comment that other writers report the same things. Do you not seek confirmation from works that have the same problem as that you are trying to support?

Secondly, Are the Gospels and epistles not accounts of Jesus ministry and manifesto
rather than an account of his life?

[jeremyp]

The question is then demonstrating inaccuracy in terms of where or how and also applying the principle to other documentation.....This is what I take as consistency.

I don't have to demonstrate inaccuracy. I've applied the criteria for historicity to Mark's gospel and I think it demonstrates that Mark's gospel is not reliable. It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that we can't use it to determine what happened in Jesus' life.

And, by the way, I did apply the principle to another document: The Gallic Wars. The results were entirely different.

To me there can be no gaps in history, if you are saying this is inaccurate then History must have gone another way...what then is that way?

Who knows. It's not incumbent on me to provide an alternative history just because I have demonstrated your primary evidential documents are not reliable.

Two more points. In your treatment of the Gallic wars you make a comment that other writers report the same things. Do you not seek confirmation from works that have the same problem as that you are trying to support?

Yep. But Cicero and Caesar were two different people. In fact, they were political enemies. They are independent sources and therefore if they say the same thing, it is more probable that what they say is true.

Secondly, Are the Gospels and epistles not accounts of Jesus ministry and manifesto
rather than an account of his life?

Yes they are which is a point against them as reliable accounts of Jesus' life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have to demonstrate inaccuracy. I've applied the criteria for historicity to Mark's gospel and I think it demonstrates that Mark's gospel is not reliable. It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just that we can't use it to determine what happened in Jesus' life.

And, by the way, I did apply the principle to another document: The Gallic Wars. The results were entirely different.
Who knows. It's not incumbent on me to provide an alternative history just because I have demonstrated your primary evidential documents are not reliable. Yep. But Cicero and Caesar were two different people. In fact, they were political enemies. They are independent sources and therefore if they say the same thing, it is more probable that what they say is true.
Yes they are which is a point against them as reliable accounts of Jesus' life.

If you are positively asserting inaccuracy then you have to say where and how they are inaccurate in other words, what is the proper history. What you have effectively ended up with is ''I don't know what happened but I know it didn't happen like that.

Secondly there is an explanatory gulf between your statement, ''it is probably inaccurate'' and ''there likely was a Jesus of history,'' the mainstream view of professional historians. (Clearly not the conclusion that is arrived by the situation where nothing about Jesus has historicity) .That gulf is of course filled by the answer to how and where the account is inaccurate.

What is a bit obvious though is that Historians seem to be in agreement with the secular parts of the ministry but difficulties with the religious. Here I think that looks more due to a suspension of history and adoption of one's beliefs.

[ProfessorDavey]

To me there can be no gaps in history, if you are saying this is inaccurate then History must have gone another way...what then is that way?

Sure there are no gaps in history, but there can be gaping gaps in our knowledge and understanding. So if we do not have reliable documentation to support a particular view on the history of a person we simply accept that we do not, with confidence, know the history of that person. What we do not do is simply make stuff up to fill the gaps. Nor do we simply accept unreliable evidence because we don't have anything more reliable.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is a bit obvious though is that Historians seem to be in agreement with the secular parts of the ministry but difficulties with the religious.

I don't think that is true at all, and indeed very few actual historians (rather than theologians or bible studies people) actually engage with the historicity of Jesus for the simple reason that you can't actually detach the history from the theology as the only evidence we have is from documents which are primarily theological rather than historical.

So I don't think that historians in any shape or form agree on the secular parts of Jesus' life and ministry. Of if they do it is to say that the evidence we have is very unreliable from a historical perspective and therefore we agree that we cannot say very much at all with confidence about Jesus' life at all beyond the likelihood that there probably was a historical person called Jesus. Indeed there is a train of thought that the theological Jesus was based on not one but several people and older traditions - a kind of cut and shut character that ticked all the right theological boxes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think that is true at all, and indeed very few actual historians (rather than theologians or bible studies people) actually engage with the historicity of Jesus for the simple reason that you can't actually detach the history from the theology as the only evidence we have is from documents which are primarily theological rather than historical.

I'm not sure this account of where genuine historic study has taken place is familiar. Engaging with the historicity of Jesus? What do you mean by that...and why aren't you giving me the alternative of Jesus as myth? So far what your a dancing around is coming out and declaring that mainstream historians think that Jesus is more likely a myth. I have to say that would make mainstream actual historians of people like Carrier. I'm not sure they fit that description but wouldn't say that because they are considered fringe theorists they wouldn't be capable of performing genuine history.

So I don't think that historians in any shape or form agree on the secular parts of Jesus' life and ministry.

or ecclesiastical history of any sort?

Or if they do it is to say that the evidence we have is very unreliable from a historical perspective

example?

and therefore we agree that we cannot say very much at all with confidence about Jesus' life at all beyond the likelihood that there probably was a historical person called Jesus

Common name, what is it then that prevents these people saying that Jesus is myth?.

Indeed there is a train of thought that the theological Jesus was based on not one but several people and older traditions - a kind of cut and shut character that ticked all the right theological boxes.

Yes it's called Jesus as myth.

This all seems to lead to the same inversion of mainstream with fringe that you have already demonstrated.
Also the thesis you seem to present here is you dismissing the early Christians as people who obviously are a special case of making stuff up. And that theologians and biblical studies are not at all historically minded or indeed capable of Historical study.

Cut and shut might be a good description of the Jesus as myth formulations of which myths Jesus is made up of. A methodology, I move, that has put them on the fringe.

[ProfessorDavey]

What do you mean by that...and why aren't you giving me the alternative of Jesus as myth?

Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. Hence serious historians dismiss the gospels as providing credible historical evidence for the reasons Jeremy outlines indicating that the documents are exceptionally weak in term of historicity. However as absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence serious historians will not jump to fill that gap with further conjecture which has no more evidence for it.

[ProfessorDavey]

or ecclesiastical history of any sort?

Of course historians study the history of the church, because there is an extremely rich evidence base on which to base those studies. And it is, of course, exceptionally interesting as a historical topic. But again historians study history, not theology although the latter may in itself be the subject of historical study. For example the nature of that theological view, how it may have changed and its impact on broader society. However a historian will be dispassionate and objective and should not engage in discussion as to whether the theological claims are actually true (although they may discuss whether people believed they were true).

[Spud]

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.

What about John outrunning Peter on the way to the tomb? This is of no significance and so is likely to indicate John is remembering the scene. It could of course be made up or mistaken, but that is less probable.

[ProfessorDavey]

What about John outrunning Peter on the way to the tomb? This is of no significance and so is likely to indicate John is remembering the scene. It could of course be made up or mistaken, but that is less probable.

Firstly we don't know who wrote any of the gospels - their attribution is merely a 2ndC tradition. Secondly John is considered to have been written around 100AD and therefore the author of John would have had to have been exceptionally old to have been around in 30AD as an adult.

The notion that this kind of narrative detail is reliable is frankly laughable. The early history of christianity is one where early christians considered Jesus to return in their lifetime so there was no need to write things down. Only when it because apparent that this wasn't going to happen (and with those of an age to have been around at the time dying) plus the early christian communities becoming scattered did it become important to write the narratives. These will have been based on earlier oral tradition - but this oral tradition isn't one of historical narrative detail, but one of sayings and stories passed on as self contained units. There would have been no continuous narrative as we see in the gospels.

So most likely the gospel writers took these fragmented sayings and created a narrative around them to generate a more compelling document. It is important to note that the gospel writers would have been writing in the time and place where these kind of 'biographies' were all the rage (see Plutarch) so creating the gospels in this fashion would have been very 'a la mode' and most likely to be attractive to their intended audiences.

[Spud]

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.

Thanks for this, I've actually got what you're saying now. It's a myth rather than a deliberate deception, right?

Okay, my reply is that myths develop much later, and this was written within the lifetime of the witnesses. Also Matthew wrote first, so the angel evolved into a young man later.

[Gordon]

What about John outrunning Peter on the way to the tomb? This is of no significance and so is likely to indicate John is remembering the scene. It could of course be made up or mistaken, but that is less probable.

On what basis is this example being a lie or mistake "less probable" that it being true? I'd be interested to know on what basis you have been able to assess these two risks as being so unlikely that they can be dismissed. Even if the story that John ran faster than Peter was indeed true, and there is no way to verify that is true, it would be a trivial matter.

I'd hope your weren't gullible to enough to suppose that if a relatively trivial aspect in the NT such as this one were true, though you could never actually verify this, that the implication is that the less trivial elements in the NT stories (like miracle claims) might also be true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course historians study the history of the church, because there is an extremely rich evidence base on which to base those studies. And it is, of course, exceptionally interesting as a historical topic.

Then they will be aware of the patristic literature available

But again historians study history, not theology although the latter may in itself be the subject of historical study.

Unfortunately or fortunately as is probably clear from the volume of patristic literature, things like the baptism and crucifixion and the resurrection are presented by the Early christians as things which actually happened, rather than myth.

If you are interested then Bettenson published by OUP is your man. He has translated several key documents in two volumes, the early church fathers and the later church fathers.

[Spud]

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.

The disciples heard the conversation. My point is that since Matthew clearly gives a more accurate account of it, and since it is fairly obvious that there was copying, it's likely that Mark was the copier. It is more likely to have been remembered in the form Matthew gives it.

[Spud]

On what basis is this example being a lie or mistake "less probable" that it being true?

It seems an unlikely detail to think up without it having happened.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The question is then demonstrating inaccuracy…

If you are positively asserting inaccuracy…

Just to put you straight again, this is flat wrong thinking. It’s not that people say “the gospels are definitely wrong”; rather they people say, “the gospels fail the tests historians apply to determine whether or not these records should be treated as reliable”. It’s the same blind spot you have about the burden of proof – insufficient reasons to accept something as true isn’t the same as saying that thing is necessarily not true.

Your “holy” texts fail the tests of historicity. That’s why they’re not taught as factual in history lessons (something that should trouble a Bible literalist like you by the way). Whether nonetheless they happen to be true though is a different matter entirely.         

[Gordon]

It seems an unlikely detail to think up without it having happened.

Why is it unlikely - people do have imaginations you know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It seems an unlikely detail to think up without it having happened.

Do you not know that literary fiction is full of "unlikely details"? 

[Gordon]

Unfortunately or fortunately as is probably clear from the volume of patristic literature, things like the baptism and crucifixion and the resurrection are presented by the Early christians as things which actually happened, rather than myth.

The problem there is, of course, that while baptisms and crucifixions (e.g. known human activities) were no doubt regular events in that time/place a claimed resurrection (e.g. a miracle) is clearly a different category of event.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem there is, of course, that while baptisms and crucifixions (e.g. known human activities) were no doubt regular events in that time/place a claimed resurrection (e.g. a miracle) is clearly a different category of event.   

Going by what was claimed by the Early Christian's it is both a historical event and a theological event.

Do you categorise it differently?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Going by what was claimed by the Early Christian's it is both a historical event and a theological event.

Do you categorise it differently?

Yes. Either it happened or it didn't; it's either a historical event or it isn't. Also calling it 'theological" doesn't change that.   

[Gordon]

Going by what was claimed by the Early Christian's it is both a historical event and a theological event.

Do you categorise it differently?

But these two categories seem to be mutually exclusive: there are methods suited to investigating the former, such as baptism ceremonies or executions, and to date no methods suited to investigating the latter, such as claims of miracles.

You are conflating history and theology.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But these two categories seem to be mutually exclusive: there are methods suited to investigating the former, such as baptism ceremonies or executions, and to date no methods suited to investigating the latter, such as claims of miracles.

You are conflating history and theology.

 

Not really. The Holy matrimony of believers say is a historical, legal, psychological and spiritual event.

The union with England is a historical, legal and an effect on national psyche, so an event can be more than one category. Given this could you please explain how a explain how a conflation is happening.