Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Spud]

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.

Since this was posted on the best bits thread...

I came across this comment while looking into the contradiction between Mt 28:8 and Mark 16:8:

"On Mark and Matthew not experiencing the resurrection events directly: I believe that there is evidence that Mark did experience these events.
Generally it is understood that Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12, who went on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey Acts 12:25 (The Coptic Church holds to this understanding)
Additionally Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Matthew's equivalent would be "Matthew the tax collector" in Mt 10:3. Luke is called "the beloved physician" by Paul. Perhaps Mark was a teenager when he was with them in Gethsemane.

[ProfessorDavey]

The women might have said nothing to anyone while on route to the disciples.

Baseless speculation.

[ProfessorDavey]

"On Mark and Matthew not experiencing the resurrection events directly: I believe that there is evidence that Mark did experience these events.
Generally it is understood that Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12, who went on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey Acts 12:25 (The Coptic Church holds to this understanding)
Additionally Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know. We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

More baseless speculation.

[Spud]

Baseless speculation.

If Mark meant that the women didn't say anything at first, through fear, that doesn't preclude them doing so later in the day, or some women not saying anything and others saying something.

[Spud]

More baseless speculation.

The base for it is that John does it, so the others could also.

[jeremyp]

If Mark meant that the women didn't say anything at first, through fear, that doesn't preclude them doing so later in the day, or some women not saying anything and others saying something.

Here's what he wrote:

So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Now, if I were writing a factual account based on eye witness testimony, I would not write that at all, because it would be a lie. The only possible eye witness testimony for those events would be from the women.

[jeremyp]

I came across this comment while looking into the contradiction between Mt 28:8 and Mark 16:8:

"On Mark and Matthew not experiencing the resurrection events directly: I believe that there is evidence that Mark did experience these events.
Generally it is understood that Mark is the same John Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12, who went on Paul and Barnabas’s first missionary journey Acts 12:25 (The Coptic Church holds to this understanding)
Additionally Mark 14:51 makes mention of a young man. Many believe this young man is Mark the Gospel writer as it was a vehicle of writing for the author of a writing not mention themselves by name but by a reference that others would know.

That's all just speculation. If this Mark actually wrote the gospel why wouldn't he just sign it?

We see this in John 21:20 where John references himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved."

No we don't.

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

"and we know that his testimony is true". That tells us that the author of the gospel is not John. Who says "I know my own testimony is true". Nobody.

Matthew's equivalent would be "Matthew the tax collector" in Mt 10:3. Luke is called "the beloved physician" by Paul. Perhaps Mark was a teenager when he was with them in Gethsemane.

Curious. We have four gospels, none of which are signed and for all of which somebody has later decided a character in them (except for Luke where we must look to his other book) must be the author. It's almost as if somebody decided that it was embarrassing having these anonymous documents be the only record of Jesus' life and made up some names based on characters in the stories.

Ca you come up with some contemporary examples where the author used the same means of identifying themselves and the author is verifiable by other means?

[Spud]

That's all just speculation. If this Mark actually wrote the gospel why wouldn't he just sign it?

Why didn't the disciple whom Jesus loved simply sign his name? We don't know. I agree that it is speculation because the author may have mentioned the man who fled naked just to show the extent to which everyone ran away. It may not be a subtle signature. But it could be.

No we don't.

"and we know that his testimony is true". That tells us that the author of the gospel is not John. Who says "I know my own testimony is true". Nobody.

It tells us that John's gospel has one of the disciples as its eyewitness, who was a close friend of Jesus and wrote down the things recorded in "John". Do we need to know more?

Curious. We have four gospels, none of which are signed and for all of which somebody has later decided a character in them (except for Luke where we must look to his other book) must be the author. It's almost as if somebody decided that it was embarrassing having these anonymous documents be the only record of Jesus' life and made up some names based on characters in the stories.

Speculation.

Ca you come up with some contemporary examples where the author used the same means of identifying themselves and the author is verifiable by other means?

I'll let you know if I do!

[Spud]

Here's what he wrote:

Now, if I were writing a factual account based on eye witness testimony, I would not write that at all, because it would be a lie. The only possible eye witness testimony for those events would be from the women.

Yes it would be a lie, however Mark is not writing a completely factual account.That is, he is not careful to check all of his work, for example the quote from Malachi in Ch. 1 he labels as from Isaiah.

[jeremyp]

Why didn't the disciple whom Jesus loved simply sign his name?

Because he didn't write any of the gospels.

We don't know. I agree that it is speculation because the author may have mentioned the man who fled naked to show the extent to which everyone ran away. It may not be a subtle signature.

It isn't a signature at all, it's a post hoc rationalisation.

[Spud]

Because he didn't write any of the gospels.

John 21:24 says, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
That tells me that whoever wrote 'John' ('we') relied on written material from that disciple and knew him, or possibly it was that disciple referring to himself. It's this 'we' in that verse who haven't signed their names. Should they have?

It isn't a signature at all, it's a post hoc rationalisation.

Yes.

[jeremyp]

John 21:24 says, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."
That tells me that whoever wrote 'John' ('we') relied on written material from that disciple and knew him, or possibly it was that disciple referring to himself. It's this 'we' in that verse who haven't signed their names. Should they have?Yes.

It doesn’t look like it was that disciple referring to himself. If it was, he seems to be protesting too much.

[Spud]

It doesn’t look like it was that disciple referring to himself. If it was, he seems to be protesting too much.

Protesting about...? Yes, it looks like someone else was writing up his memoirs.

[jeremyp]

Protesting about...? Yes, it looks like someone else was writing up his memoirs.

This s what happened. It's me that witnessed it and I'm telling the truth.. honest, guv!

[ProfessorDavey]

Protesting about...? Yes, it looks like someone else was writing up his memoirs.

It looks as if someone decades, if not centuries (noting the timing of the first extant version) was writing an account of events that took place long ago, far, far away and involving people who spoke a different language. And in doing so tried to make it look 'authentic' and for the clear purpose of trying to persuade others to agree with his views.

That isn't a memoir, it is a manifesto by proxy.

And the levels of purported detail count against authenticity as those sorts of details just aren't retained and transmitted accurately over decades and centuries of oral tradition. No it speaks of a fictional narrative, albeit one likely derived from events involving real people and places etc.

[Spud]

It looks as if someone decades, if not centuries (noting the timing of the first extant version) was writing an account of events that took place long ago, far, far away and involving people who spoke a different language. And in doing so tried to make it look 'authentic' and for the clear purpose of trying to persuade others to agree with his views.

That isn't a memoir, it is a manifesto by proxy.

And the levels of purported detail count against authenticity as those sorts of details just aren't retained and transmitted accurately over decades and centuries of oral tradition. No it speaks of a fictional narrative, albeit one likely derived from events involving real people and places etc.

Surely a high level of detail can point to either it being an eyewitness account written soon after the events, or to them being made up any time later?

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely a high level of detail can point to either it being an eyewitness account written soon after the events, or to them being made up any time later?

Not really in the world of oral tradition, which is not and never has been about capturing lots of actual detail. It is about story telling, not forensic actual detail capture.

Let's not forget that the stories in the gospels cover events over several years (in the case of Matthew and Luke decades). Who and how could this level of detail have been captured at all, let alone transmitted accurately over decades, if not centuries.

[Owlswing]

I know that my ideas and opinions on the Bible and its contents are mostly ignored due to my admitted non-Christianity, but how anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can consider the Bible, as it exists in 2021, as an accurate record of history since Year Zero AD is beyond me.

Even those who agree that there is little to back up the Bible dated earlier than 400 AD seem to insist that there is a very good chance that it is totally accurate.

Surely the least amount of common sense must mitigate against this!

Owlswing

)O(

 

[Spud]

Not really in the world of oral tradition, which is not and never has been about capturing lots of actual detail. It is about story telling, not forensic actual detail capture.

Let's not forget that the stories in the gospels cover events over several years (in the case of Matthew and Luke decades). Who and how could this level of detail have been captured at all, let alone transmitted accurately over decades, if not centuries.

Some stories would have been transmitted orally, but the sermons in Matthew and Luke, and the dialogue in John 13-17 is full of detail that would be difficult to transit orally, so, if not made up, they would have been written down, probably quite soon after the event, by those who were there. Matthew the tax collector would be one candidate, who would certainly have been able to write. If Jesus was teaching the scriptures to his disciples, they must have been able to at least read, so probably they could write as well.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some stories would have been transmitted orally, but the sermons in Matthew and Luke, and the dialogue in John 13-17 is full of detail that would be difficult to transit orally, so, if not made up, they would have been written down, probably quite soon after the event, by those who were there.

Yet more baseless assertion. Where is your actual evidence for any written record of these events. We have the mysterious Q document, that is considered to have been a collection of quotes from Jesus - however there is no evidence that it actually exists or existed, merely a hypothesis that the gospels may have relied on some other (unknown) document. But Q is supposedly just quotes - the gospels include all sorts of other detail that there is no evidence would have been, or could have been, written down. And that type of details isn't accurately recorded in oral tradition. However it is exactly the sort of thing that is added to stories.

Matthew the tax collector would be one candidate, who would certainly have been able to write.

Except by using a circular argument of the type you so often use, where is the independent evidence that Matthew was a tax inspector - there isn't any.

If Jesus was teaching the scriptures to his disciples, they must have been able to at least read, so probably they could write as well.

What proportion of the population in those days could read and write? Very few. I thought some of the disciples were supposed to be fishermen. Why would someone in that profession be able to read or write.

[jeremyp]

Some stories would have been transmitted orally, but the sermons in Matthew and Luke, and the dialogue in John 13-17 is full of detail that would be difficult to transit orally, so, if not made up, they would have been written down, probably quite soon after the event, by those who were there.

But there's no evidence that these documents ever existed, unless you're thinking about Papias' sayings gospel.

Matthew the tax collector would be one candidate, who would certainly have been able to write.

Assuming he could write (and I'm not convinced he necessarily could - reading is one thing, writing is another), he would be a candidate, but there's no contemporary evidence that he wrote the gospel.

If Jesus was teaching the scriptures to his disciples, they must have been able to at least read, so probably they could write as well.

Firstly, they didn't necessarily need to be able to read. Most people couldn't in those days, but, if they were Jews, they would presumably have sat in the synagogue and listened to people reading the gospels. The idea that being able to read automatically means you can write too is erroneous and probably not the case in 1st century Palestine. Hence the popularity of scribes.

[jeremyp]

Yet more baseless assertion. Where is your actual evidence for any written record of these events. We have the mysterious Q document, that is considered to have been a collection of quotes from Jesus - however there is no evidence that it actually exists or existed, merely a hypothesis that the gospels may have relied on some other (unknown) document. But Q is supposedly just quotes - the gospels include all sorts of other detail that there is no evidence would have been, or could have been, written down. And that type of details isn't accurately recorded in oral tradition. However it is exactly the sort of thing that is added to stories.

Q is not just quotes. It's primarily sayings attributed to Jesus, including quotes, parables, sermons and, of course, the Lord's Prayer but there are a few other bits in it. Here's a complete list of what is in Q

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html

Personally, I'm somewhat sceptical that it ever existed as a single document. The obvious answer to the question "why haven't we got any copies" is that there never were any. That would mean Luke had to have a copy of Matthew to work from, but that seems a reasonable assumption.