Is eye witness testimony enough?

[Justin108]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

[Nickman]

Here is a kicker, IMO. If these authors are eyewitnesses then how do they know the thoughts of Jesus when he is by himself?

Mark 14:32-36, Matthew 26:36-46, Luke 22: 39-46 and the temptation narratives all have Jesus' thoughts written down when no one else was there, according to the text. So if they were eyewitnesses then how did they know what he said or thought in these cases? Why does the text say he was alone? How can anyone know what was said? Did Jesus tell them? How would that convo come up? "Jesus we fell asleep but what did you say?" "Oh, I told god to take the cup from me". "what about in the desert before we even knew you?" "Oh, I thought very hard and I was taken on top of the pinnacle and a huge mountain that I could see the entire world". It makes no sense if one thinks that this is written by eyewitnesses. It matches perfectly with second and third hand as well as fiction writers. All is in third person. Learn third person present and you will see that these stories are not written by people who were there.

[Goat]

Two things:

#1 - If the ONLY thing you can do is mockingly deny something (as opposed to saying, this is my claim and this is my support for said claim) why should anyone treat your argument as ... an actual argument rather than just childish mockery?

#2 - Your evidence is deeply flawed, and consists, as usual of excuplated evidence that leaves off major portions of the record you claim to have read:

"Like the other Gospels, Mark is a story or narrative. Story does not mean only fiction. Mark intends to write a true story. It makes sense that he would use narrative strategies to show and tell the life of Jesus."

http://bible.org/seriespage/eyewitness- ... 99s-gospel

Please feel free to reference the remainder of the proof.

You claim evidence, while simultaneously claiming that I am not doing what I just did again (odd that), and yet I get the distinct impression you are simply using google to find and paste anything that butresses your claim and ignoring everything else.

That is why you have a DUTY to, like the source I just sited, make a case and support it ... as opposed to just googling and dumping any random thing Goat - especially while claiming OTHERS don't understand, and are indeed not using, evidence - which I just did again.

You don't seem to have read much of what I have written if you think I am 'only mocking'.. although I have to admit that there are certain amusement at the difference between what you claim things say, and what they actually say.

Now, let's look at what you actually wrote.

Yes, Mark is a narrative, and Mark is presenting a story. And, it might be true that Mark intends to write a true narrative (maybe, maybe not, I think it is hard to tell without confirmation bias). HOWEVER, that isn't the point in question , now is it. The question was 'Is Mark eye witness testimony'. Did you notice, your blurb did not address that ?? Nor, did it address 'How do we know the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark'

I find it very amusing that you call my evidence 'flawed', since it is the evidence you provided! I find that to be very ironic actually.

So, when it comes to the issue 'Who wrote the Gospel of Mark', and 'Was Mark an eye witness', the article you wrote is silent. And you call this 'evidence'. The article you quoted, and the section you quoted does not address this. It give the opinion (without show WHY that opinion should be considered true) that it was supposed to be a 'true story'.

Now, the rest of it tries to make the point that the "THEY" are Peter and Jesus. However, if you read the passages quoted, it does not SUPPORT the idea that THEY are Jesus and Peter.

Now, while this could be a reasonable assumption given Church tradition of the Gospel of Mark, .. the Gospel of Mark is STILL not an eye witness. At the VERY best, it would be stories given to the writer of the GOM after the supposed eye witness passed away (according to tradition). Guess what.. The BEST case scenario for the GOM is hearsay. Not only that, the GOM does not identify who is doing the writing within itself, but we have to make the assumption that the early church fathers got their facts right for that.

Sorry, but twice told tales aren't very good evidence.. not when you have so much .. miracles.. added on the story.

Even your own source .. if you read the entire passage, will admit that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was not an eye witness. According to tradition, he was relaying what his teacher said.

Personally, after reading that essay, I am not particularly impressed with it's reasoning. He is making too many assumptions, and not backing up his claims. While written just the way I would expect someone with a PHD in literature to write, from a scholarly piece looking at something from a historical perspective, it falls short in supporting it's claims. It is great for someone who already believes, but supporting the arguments?? Not so much.

If you are worried about confirmation bias there are a couple of ways to deal with it:

#1 - you could stop making claims without support:

So, why don't you? I would love you to support your claims.. with something that can be shown to be more than the rankest speculation. If I make a claim, you can ask me to back it up, and I will. Heck, I even backed up my claims using the source YOU provided.

Personally, after reading that essay, I am not particularly impressed with it's reasoning. He is making too many assumptions, and not backing up his claims.

Those assumptions would be? And they are invalid why?

Well, let's look at his unsupported assumption/claim number 1. "Mark was writing as it it was a true story'. That is an assumption that he is claiming as truth, but did not back up. He is writing for people who the bible is inerrant.

The very paragraph you quoted had an assumption he could insisted on was truth, but did not support.

Everything goes down hill from there.


As it is, you are also misuing the essay. Let's see you show where the author of that essay said "the writer of the Gospel of Mark was an eye witness'. He doesn't.
He tried to make a case that Mark got his information from an eye witness.. but he never claimed MARK was an eye witness.

These days, we call that 'hearsay'.

[Student]

Lets test fuzzies little fallacy shall we.

A woman comes into a police station covered in bruises. She writes out a statement that he husband just beat her (which is clearly in evidence by the bruises), and she claims that her husband also threatened to kill her by placing a gun to her head.

A neighbor also comes in and details the same beating and death threat. However, there is no gun registered to the owner, a search turns up nothing, and the husband denies both the beating and the threat, despite having a long record of domestic violence.

Would it be logical to assume that the wife and neighbor are telling the truth about the beating, which is evidenced by the bruises and general disarray of the house after the assault, but lying about the death threat because we cannot independently verify the statement with physical evidence?

According to fuzzy, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the death threat took place.

Indeed the courts, based on such fallacious use of evidence, should deny a restraining order because the threat cannot be individually verified and is thus fallacious.

Is there a way to use eye-witness statement to arrive at conclusions or not?

The aptly named fuzzy test for you.

The difference is that death threats and owning a gun both conform to reality. In this case I would believe the woman's claim. However if she claimed he held a light-saber to her throat then I would not believe her. Now I know you're going to write this off as "absurd" again but then you'd just be dodging the point. The point I am making is that the claims in the bible are no mere claims. The claims in the bible are radical and radical claims (like the light-saber and the earlier mentioned dragon) require radical evidence.

So does the historical narrative of Jesus. And it relates directly to the question of how to treat the eyewitness statements of human beings .. particularly multiple eye witness accounts.

Either the standard is, if we can verify parts as honest, we can assume that the remainder in most likely true. Or the standard is tat we can only trust eye witness statement in any circumstance unless we have corroborating evidence.

If the subjective opinion, quite possible born of your own bias, is used to reject claims simply because you declare them untenable or unrealistic ... then we have no standards for evaluation at all.

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

It is your faith looking for a reason to exclude evidence.

Simply put, we can always rationalize away that which we do not wish to deal with ... The fact remains we have eye witness accounts that detail a series of miracles and they appear to be substantially genuine.

So it comes down to that question: Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

1. The standard varies from situation to situation. And I want you to answer this scenario to prove my point. In your scenario of the abused woman, I would believe her statement about the gun. This is because it conforms to reality. But I would not believe her claim that her husband threatened her with a lightsaber. Would you? I need you to answer this. If a woman who was assaulted by her husband claimed he had a lightsaber... would you believe her?


2. I have responded to your "proofs" of miracles and explained why they are wanting. Cancer remissions are not miracles. The odds of a cancer remission is more likely than winning the lottery yet you do not consider winning the lottery to need supernatural explanation.

Once again, if miracles are happening now:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

And someone claims in a eyewitness statement (several actually) that a miracle occured, we either assume that they are lying or telling the truth.

If the ONLY reason we doubt them is because our preconceptions tell us that there are no miracles, then we will never be convinced will we.

You have basically put your own subjectivity into and objective process. Indeed, people being threatened with a gun, and I say this as a combat veteran, is relatively rare, most people throughout the course of their lives will NEVER be threatened with a gun.

Yet solely because we have subjective familiarity with 'guns' a story naturally become plausible ... the integrity of the claimant isn't even a part of the process?

Now, how do you apply that 2,000 year old documents in an entirely different culture? You don't.

You HAVE to evaluate the character of the claimant. If an eye witness claims Hannibal went right rather than left, we would never allow, "Well, in MY tactical sense going left is fantastic, therefore the statement is clearly false."

Yet we should accept it for Jesus?

I think these claims of “miraculous� cures might be credible had they appeared in peer reviewed publications such as the British Medical Journal or The Lancet. As it is, anyone can publish spurious claims on an internet blog or in a book produced by an overtly Christian publishing house, such as Logos International, where academic rigour is a poor second to evangelical zeal.

So, it WOULD have been acceptable if these statements had appeared in a professional medical journal (and there was no professional medical anything in the time and place) that did not exist at the time?

So, to be clear, you will only accept these things if time travelling medical examiners happen to verify the claims?

IN THE MEANTIME, historians will just have make do with critical assessment tools and objective standards ... until such time as we have time travelling medical examiners. Gotcha.

As I have long suspected, you either don’t read what others post, or you choose to ignore inconvenient facts.

To clarify the situation, I was referring to the link you provided regarding miracles happening in the present time.

Once again, if miracles are happening now:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

I think these claims of “miraculous� cures might be credible had they appeared in peer reviewed publications such as the British Medical Journal or The Lancet. As it is, anyone can publish spurious claims on an internet blog or in a book produced by an overtly Christian publishing house, such as Logos International, where academic rigour is a poor second to evangelical zeal.

[Bust Nak]

Is there some reaosn that atheists have a problem actually quoting me?

You forgot to use a qualifier. I have no probelm actually quoting you.

I think denying scripture for no reason, while claiming you have no burden of proof, and demanding that everyone provide YOU with information, for which you have set no standards of evaluation and clearly intend to reject ad infinitum with one random excuses after another ...

THAT would be an argument from absurdity.

So by that term, you just mean being unreasonable?

[Goat]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

How do courts do it?

You do realize that you can send someone to jail based SOLELY on eye witness testimony?

Do you realize that quite often, people who go to jail based 'soley' on eye witness testimony are wrongly convicted?? How many people where released because of 'project innocence'? Eye witness testimony is acknowledged to be very unreliable

Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses.

[S.T. Ranger]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

How do courts do it?

You do realize that you can send someone to jail based SOLELY on eye witness testimony?

Do you realize that quite often, people who go to jail based 'soley' on eye witness testimony are wrongly convicted?? How many people where released because of 'project innocence'? Eye witness testimony is acknowledged to be very unreliable

Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses.

I would ask first does that mean that eye witness testimony is thrown out? Because there are instances where circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony has led to a wrong verdict, we should dismiss it altogether? Also, could you provide stats that will compare overturned convictions with those that have not been? This is one of the issues the Law sought to address, that someone not be convicted on the testimony of one witness. Could you tell me how many of these overturned convictions were?

Secondly, while I understand that atheists do not see the internal claims of scripture as valid, it cannot be denied that there are many books/epistles which state the writer was an actual witness, not just conveying hearsay.

Matthew, John, and Peter, for instance, are said to have been witnesses. If you deny the internal claims, I ask, what do you base your belief on? Would it not be the testimony of someone else, bringing you to the same level of credibility as that of the internal witness of scripture? Unless you were actually there and can say, "No, Matthew, John, and Peter were in india the whole time these things were going on. I saw everything, what is recorded is invalid and does not accurately describe the events as they really occured."

See the problem there? So why would your claim that...

Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses

...be considered anything more than the hearsay you charge the Biblical account to be?

God bless.

[PhiloKGB]

Matthew, John, and Peter, for instance, are said to have been witnesses. If you deny the internal claims, I ask, what do you base your belief on?

The Gospel of Matthew makes no internal claims about authorship. And what does Peter's alleged witness have to do with anything? His epistles are not narratives or accounts of Jesus.

Would it not be the testimony of someone else, bringing you to the same level of credibility as that of the internal witness of scripture? Unless you were actually there and can say, "No, Matthew, John, and Peter were in india the whole time these things were going on. I saw everything, what is recorded is invalid and does not accurately describe the events as they really occured."

With the sheer volume of Biblical scholarship easily available it is downright astonishing that you attempt to portray this as solely a battle of eyewitnesses. Have you not gained some measure of respect for the atheists here that you can cease insulting our intelligences?

[S.T. Ranger]

Matthew, John, and Peter, for instance, are said to have been witnesses. If you deny the internal claims, I ask, what do you base your belief on?

The Gospel of Matthew makes no internal claims about authorship.

I did not say "Matthew carries an internal claim," I said...

Matthew, John, and Peter, for instance, are said to have been witnesses.

...and it is the following part which I would like an answer to:

If you deny the internal claims, I ask, what do you base your belief on?

The fact is that while scripture does have internal claims concerning "authorsip" the opposition does not: it relies solely on the claims of those that have examined scripture. Biblical scholarship can go back farther to quote those that were associated with scripture, but all that is said in opposition cannot, except where Early Church fathers were in disagreement. That makes their testimony, in my opinion (and that is all it is), more credible than the testimony of "scholars" that deny these claims. Matthew was accepted as the one who penned this Gospel by the early Church.

But to be fair, my statement:

Secondly, while I understand that atheists do not see the internal claims of scripture as valid, it cannot be denied that there are many books/epistles which state the writer was an actual witness, not just conveying hearsay.


...followed by...

Matthew, John, and Peter, for instance, are said to have been witnesses. If you deny the internal claims, I ask, what do you base your belief on?

...could be interpreted as saying there is an internal witness in Matthew.

The point is this: scripture shows this men to be eyewitnesses, not simply repeating what they had been told.

This is in response to Goat's statement...

Not only that, but when it comes to the New Testament, none of the documents that are in the New Testament were actually written by eye witnesses.

...which takes us to the question neither he nor you have answered: on who's testimony does the statement made rest?

It cannot be denied that we believe what is purported to be ewewitness account, yet yours is not.

That is the question I sought an answer to.

And what does Peter's alleged witness have to do with anything?

It has much to do with scripture and our faith. I understand that perhaps atheists believe that we believe scripture based on the testimony of those that penned the books, and that this amounts to circular reasoning, and I can understand that. However, we believe firmly that the men who penned these books were in fact eyewitnesses, or were associated with men who were, such as may be suggested of Luke. Paul likely witnessed events surrounding the Lord, but we see his testimony primarily after the fact, and his association with the Lord post-Cross of the Resurrected Lord.

Peter's testimony in his epistles does reference the earthly ministry of Christ, in particular, His transfiguration on the mount. While this might be dismissed, it still goes back to counter the statement made by Goat, regardless of whether one finds it credible or not.

His epistles are not narratives or accounts of Jesus.

Have you read them to make this statement? Or taking it on faith that you can make the statement without being called on it?

Would it not be the testimony of someone else, bringing you to the same level of credibility as that of the internal witness of scripture? Unless you were actually there and can say, "No, Matthew, John, and Peter were in india the whole time these things were going on. I saw everything, what is recorded is invalid and does not accurately describe the events as they really occured."

With the sheer volume of Biblical scholarship easily available it is downright astonishing that you attempt to portray this as solely a battle of eyewitnesses.

And I did this...how? I am simply referring solely to the issue of testimony, and have at no time said "this as solely a battle of eyewitnesses." A little premature to begin stating somethinig like that on the short post I made, isn't it?"

But I am very glad you recognize the reality of Biblical scholarship.

What I would rather have is a response concerning the fact that if in fact, scripture is a man-made collection of facts, we still do not fail to recognize that those that make such claims themselves base their claims upon hearsay.

Have you not gained some measure of respect for the atheists here that you can cease insulting our intelligences?

I try to show respect, and will give it where it is due. Now you tell me: should I have respect for someone that ignores the question and then based upon a few statements decides I have shown no respect?

Were my questions disrespectful? Can you show me why you interpreted them to be so?

So tell me how my post has insulted anybody's intelligence.

Going out of town so I will get back to this when I can.

God bless.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The fact is that while scripture does have internal claims concerning "authorsip" the opposition does not: it relies solely on the claims of those that have examined scripture. Biblical scholarship can go back farther to quote those that were associated with scripture, but all that is said in opposition cannot, except where Early Church fathers were in disagreement. That makes their testimony, in my opinion (and that is all it is), more credible than the testimony of "scholars" that deny these claims. Matthew was accepted as the one who penned this Gospel by the early Church.

This is an appeal to tradition. Scholars evaluate the authorship of the Gospels based on all the information we have available. Church fathers evaluate the authorship of the Gospels based on largely unknown criteria - we essentially have empty claims from them and nothing more. Simply because those claims are very old does not make them more likely to be true.

The point is this: scripture shows this men to be eyewitnesses, not simply repeating what they had been told.

I don't think that this is the case. Does this look like the testimony of two independent eyewitnesses, or is at least one of these writers simply repeating what they have been told?

Matt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 3:7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.�

And it isn't just the words of Jesus that are word for word identical. Take this for example:

Matt 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Mark 13:14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

The duplication of parenthetical passages like "let the reader understand" make it clear that there is a shared source, one not only containing the words of Jesus but also editorial commentary.

The existence of so many directly copied passages in the synoptic gospels makes the proposition that they are the work of independent eyewitnesses essentially untenable. Furthermore, none of the synoptic gospels make internal claims to be written by eyewitnesses. What we have are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, but collections of stories drawn from oral and written tradition framed for distinct theological purposes.

[S.T. Ranger]

The fact is that while scripture does have internal claims concerning "authorsip" the opposition does not: it relies solely on the claims of those that have examined scripture. Biblical scholarship can go back farther to quote those that were associated with scripture, but all that is said in opposition cannot, except where Early Church fathers were in disagreement. That makes their testimony, in my opinion (and that is all it is), more credible than the testimony of "scholars" that deny these claims. Matthew was accepted as the one who penned this Gospel by the early Church.

This is an appeal to tradition. Scholars evaluate the authorship of the Gospels based on all the information we have available. Church fathers evaluate the authorship of the Gospels based on largely unknown criteria - we essentially have empty claims from them and nothing more. Simply because those claims are very old does not make them more likely to be true.

The point is this: scripture shows this men to be eyewitnesses, not simply repeating what they had been told.

I don't think that this is the case. Does this look like the testimony of two independent eyewitnesses, or is at least one of these writers simply repeating what they have been told?

Matt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 3:7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.�

And it isn't just the words of Jesus that are word for word identical. Take this for example:

Matt 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Mark 13:14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

The duplication of parenthetical passages like "let the reader understand" make it clear that there is a shared source, one not only containing the words of Jesus but also editorial commentary.

The existence of so many directly copied passages in the synoptic gospels makes the proposition that they are the work of independent eyewitnesses essentially untenable. Furthermore, none of the synoptic gospels make internal claims to be written by eyewitnesses. What we have are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus, but collections of stories drawn from oral and written tradition framed for distinct theological purposes.

And still the question posed is not answered.

I would not argue that there are not similarities, though if I asked you to quote something well known the chances are you would quote it like most people. For instance, "Cleanliness is..."

The differences of quotation in the Gospels should also be taken into account. This is another reason why some question the Gospels, when it is really a matter of either way, some will just question them as credible. Scribal errors are attributed in certain places for this very reason: because something is so frequently said that when a copy was being made, a certain pjrase would trigger a popular phrase and it was inadvertantly inserted, rather than what was supposed to copied. Certain quotes are made which seem to be in error until one understands that it is a quotation from the LXX, rather than the Hebrew scriptures. There are just many things that could be criticized if one has a particular bent set on discrediting scripture for any reason.

All I am asking is, is it not true that both sides take for granted that what they base their faith or belief on could in fact be considered...identical? In other words, I take it on faith that the internal claims of scripture (which I have no idea why you would deny there are) are true, and those that deny it place faith in scholarly works which for some reason are supposed to be irrefutable and trustworthy, despite the fact that they are not eyewitnesses, but simply interpret the evidence.

Could you respond to that aspect of my post?

And I'll be back when I can. Thanks for the response.

God bless.