Loading...When thinking about my upcoming debate with Jonathan Sheffield about “proof” of the resurrection, since I anticipated he would take a “legal” approach to the question (since something connected with the law is his day job), I expected we would get into a discussion of the validity of eyewitness testimony. Hey, if all these people said they saw Jesus after his death, he must have been brought to life, right?
I’ve always been struck by how conservative Christians find “eyewitness testimony” strong evidence for what they believe but of no value for what others in other religious traditions believe. One of my favorite instances involves a well-documented case in far more modern times that most people have never heard of, and when they do hear of it they simply dismiss it. It involves the 18th century founder of Hasidic Judaism, the Baal Shem Tov, often simply called Besht.
I talk about the situation in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. (The specific issue is
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
As you point out, many of the tales about the Besht give sources. “I heard from a certain person whose name is Rabbi David” (tale 52) or “I heard this from Rabbi Jacob … who heard it from his father” (tale 101) or even “I heard this story from Rabbi Moses, the son-in-law of the sister of the rabbi of the holy community of Polonnoye, who heard it himself from the Besht” (tale 166): attempts, perhaps, to assert that, no matter how improbable the tale may be, there’s a witness somewhere along the line. And that leads me to wonder about certain statements in the gospels that don’t claim eyewitness testimony. For example, how might the author of Luke 1:41 have known that what Elizabeth experienced was specifically being filled with the Holy Spirit? Or how did the author of Mark 14:35-36 know what Jesus prayed when the potential witnesses were asleep? Is this sort of thing at least a secondary reason motivating assertions of the Bible’s divine inspiration, which would short-circuit any such questions?
Yup. Or the trial of Jesus before Pilate in John where they are the only two there. Big problems.
Irrelevant perhaps, but I can’t resist — one of my favorite moments in the Odyssey is in Book 12, when Odysseus is recounting his adventures to the Phaeacians. He says that when his men slaughtered the cattle of Helios, the Sun God, Helios threatened openly, to Zeus and the other gods, that if Zeus didn’t
punish Odysseus’ men for the slaughter, he (Helios) would stop lighting the earth and go down and shine among the dead.
But wait a minute — how could Odysseus, a mortal, know what Helios said to the other gods? Well, Odysseus tells us how; he says that Calypso recounted this to him, and that she herself learned it from the god Hermes. I used to tell my students to pause and admire this as, in effect, Greek literature’s first footnote giving a source attribution–Homer tells us that Odysseus told the Phaeacians that Calypso told Odysseus that Hermes told Calypso what Helios said to Zeus (which presumably Hermes heard in person).
So back in probably the 8th century BCE, someone–whether we call him “Homer” or not– realized the problem of reporting on a conversation when only the participants were present, and provided an elegant explanation.
I think you may have talked about this in your Great Courses course on Homer. It’s a great point — very clever of Homer. Whoever he was.
(As my brother, Radd, the classicist always says — I assume this is a standard line among you classicists, but is not widely heard outside that august circile [including among most of the blog readers here], and is a line I’ve always liked: “Homer didn’t write the Odyssey. Someone else named Homer did.”)
Your point about how people can go from imagining seeing something to thinking they actually remember it is extremely important. I have an example myself. My sister’s very earliest memory is going down a bumpy dirt road, going to the friends’ house where she would stay while I was being born. She has a strong visual memory of looking out the car window at the dirt road and the trees, and also of knowing why she was there. She was 2 years and 2 weeks old.
She described this to me many times when we were children. And — here’s the thing. When I think about this anecdote, **I** have that strong visual memory of looking out the window. It is absolutely indistinguishable from my own early childhood memories. Since we don’t have a younger sibling, this can’t be my memory; it never happened to me. But if I’d had any younger siblings, I would be absolutely certain that this was indeed MY memory of being taken to stay with friends while the baby was born. I can’t pinpoint when that visual image arrived in my “memory”–but the fact is, people *can* over time “remember” things that never happened.
Yes indeed! Interesting story!
My most vivid early “memory” is floating down a stairway with an umbrella (a la Mary Poppins) in the house we had till I was 2. It wasn’t till I was a teenager that it couldn’t have happened. It couldn’t have been inspired by Mary Poppins itself, since it would have been years earlier; but maybe for a dream considered as reality and then implanted as a memory. I still remember it!
What’s really spooky for me is remembering things *today* that didn’t happen (or at least the way I remember). Either my wife or I has this problem with some regularity. 🙂
A second cousin of selective deafness.
Jonathan J. Sheffield is a clinical assistant professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. While in law school he was managing editor of the Loyola Law Journal so I am sure he a very bright individual. He previousy practiced law full time at the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. There is more information about him here: https://www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facultyandadministrationprofiles/sheffield-jonathan.shtml.
No question for me that the New Testament don’t past muster as convincing evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. But what about the movement that built based on his resurrection. Along the several hundred-year path to Constantine who made it the state church, many devoted their lives (some were martyrs) to living as if this idea were true. Frankly, I can read the story of the Besht as evidence in the other direction, that is, he and the many who preceded him claiming miracles (and to be the Messiah movements) created movements that slipped beneath the waves not many years hence their deaths. While I don’t believe these second order witnesses stand up in court either, something is going on when a movement sustains based on a Jesus or a Mohammed and I think they count as positive evidence of some kind. Bart, I’m sure you have a point of view on this somewhere in your corpus. Could you share where and provide a flavor? Thx
I don’t think that a large or even massive group of people who subscribe to a belief provides any indication / evidence the belief is true. There have been many beliefs that lasted for millennia among nearly everyone that no one today thinks are true. For you, does it make a difference if it’s a religious belief? (I’d say being willing to be martyred for a belief shows you REALLY believe it and that it’s really important, but not that it is therefore more likely true…)
I generally agree with your comment except that you are mistaken about the Besht. No, I’m not claiming his miracles really happened, but pointing out that his movement did not “[slip] beneath the waves not many years hence…”
To the contrary the Chassidic movement flourished and spread across Central and Eastern Europe until by the 19th century it included about half the Jewish population there. It even inspired an active counter-movement (the Mitnagdim). It remained the dominant form of Judaism there until it was all but destroyed in the Holocaust.
The survivors determined to rebuild and have succeeded to a remarkable degree in both the U.S. and Israel. Their very large families will eventually make them Judaism’s majority. In Israel, where they are known as Haredim, they have become a major political force. Many secular Israelis consider them a serious threat to the nation’s survival because of their lack of modern education, minimal participation in the advanced part of the economy, reliance on public assistance, and refusal to serve in the army. As you can imagine, that last characteristic became even more unpopular during the years of the Gaza war,
Moshe, thanks for bringing me up to date on the movement, I had no idea. Is the movement still basically true to their founding ideals (belief in his miracles and teachings) and what is it that provides it’s enduring appeal?
Are you aware of any research that has studied modern day frauds such as Uri Geller and Peter Popoff to gain insight into how ancient miracle stories originated?
There certainly are anthropological accounts of exorcisms and healings in other cultures, yes. There are probably studies of frauds by academics interested in seeing how miracles stories in the modern world might start, but it’s difficult to make an immediate connection with how they would have started in such a different time and contextr.
disabledupes{40044bef04de628a084cf1cfbcf23073}disabledupes
I believe that the Magician and Skeptic James Randi did so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Bibliography
Thanks, Bart. For another current example, check out Protestant doubt about the so-called miracles at Fatima from the early 20th century. Our Protestant friends say that rather than a miraculous event, Fatima wonders are better explained as hoaxes, mass hysteria and deception. Reasonable descriptions which sound very close to what critical scholars say about New Testament miracle stories.
Yes, it’s very interesting how those who believe in miracles in their own tradition completely rejectd those in others…
Yes, many, I suspect all, reports of miracles are the result of deception, misinterpretation of natural events, and faulty memories. The so-called Fatima miracle seems to have been nothing other than the sun coming through the clouds and many people there didn’t think they had witnessed a miracle. Those who had are the ones that created the hype about it. Consider the reports of people claiming to have been abducted onto flying saucers. These are basically just nightmares. But reports of miracles, as propaganda, should not be underestimated. Those things can change the direction of people’s lives. Consider Sai Baba, who reportedly did lots of miracles: healing lots of sick people of leprosy, blindness, lots of other serious illnesses, commanding rain to stop, calming numerous storms (like Jesus reportedly did), feeding crowds with tiny portions of food (just like Jesus reportedly did), and so on. Lots of people have chosen to devote their lives to him. Do a web search on him. Or, how about Padre Pio who supposedly could be in two different places at the same time and allegedly had stigmata? My sister’s mother-in-law firmly believed in him. This type of propaganda can be dangerous.
The questions at the end of Bart’s post are inline with the tactics of a criminal defense lawyer’s attempt to get his guilty client an acquittal. Any doubt he can generate is an attempt to beat the ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ requirement.
Also, saying that one bogus story discredits all other stories of a similar subject is illogical. If an exaggerated story exists in history, does that prove that all
historical records of a similar type are exaggerated, fictional, or based on rumors/hearsay?
Eyewitnesses claimed to not only see a risen Jesus(which could have been an apparition), but that they touched Him, had conversations with Him, and ate with Him post resurrection(Luke 24:36-48, John 20:26-29, ch 21, Acts 10:40,41, 1st John 1:1,2), which refutes the idea of an apparition.
Bart, you said, “I’ve always been struck by how conservative Christians find “eyewitness testimony” strong evidence for what they believe but of no value for what others in other religious traditions believe.” I’ve never said that and have never heard any other Christian say that. What I believe isn’t predicated on what they believe. Their story could be true or false, but it doesn’t change the facts of my story.
I’m not saying you have said that. I’ve had numerous debates with scholars who have no problem believing the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles, but completely discount the miracles done by other holy or important people in other religious traditions.
You say that “eyewitnesses claimed . . .” to have interacted directly with the resurrected Jesus. But the thing is, we don’t have eyewitness testimony to those interactions. What we have are accounts by later writers saying that this is what the eyewitnesses said. You brought up the comparison with a defense lawyer; well, in a court, the reports we have of the resurrection would be categorized as “hearsay” and would not be admissible.
If I say to a judge, “I saw the defendant inside the bank holding a gun,” that’s eyewitness testimony (and my truthfulness can be investigated under cross-examination). But if I say, “My sister told me she saw the defendant inside the bank,” that’s not admissible; it’s hearsay. And if I say, “My sister told me that someone who was there told her they’d seen the defendant inside the bank,” that is even less evidentiary. Most accounts we have of the resurrection are like that third example–at two or more removes. Does this mean the resurrection definitely did not happen? No; but it means we have no reliable eyewitness accounts that it did.
“You say that “eyewitnesses claimed . . .” to have interacted directly with the resurrected Jesus. But the thing is, we don’t have eyewitness testimony to those interactions.”
John claimed to be an eyewitness at the crucifixion(John19:26-35),at the empty tomb(John20:1-9), and at post resurrection appearances(John20:24-31,21:24). He claims as first person direct interaction. Because he wrote decades later doesn’t invalidate his testimony. I still vividly remember watching Jack Ruby shoot Oswald 63 years ago on live TV.
Hearsay:Luke places himself in the story narratives in Acts over 50 times saying,“we, our and us”(Acts 21:5, e.g.). He’s not repeating hearsay he is recording first hand Peter’s first public sermon where Peter says, “God swore with an oath(to David) that He would raise up Christ and his flesh wouldn’t see corruption(decomposition) and WE ARE ALL WITNESSES OF THIS RESURRECTION”(Acts 2:22-32). The “we” and “all” are 120 witnesses from Acts 1:15(please read in context with chapter two). Luke is recording Peter’s eyewitness testimony; the courts consider this evidence not hearsay. All four gospels and Paul corroborate Peter’s resurrection narrative.
Thank you for your interest in this subject. I think it is the most important issue from the New Testament that can be debated(IMHO).
**IF** the Beloved Disciple was in fact the author of the Gospel of John, then it’s eyewitness testimony. But my understanding (I’m outside my area of expertise here ) is that the general scholarly consensus leans towards thinking the Beloved Disciple was its ultimate source but NOT its author. If he is the author, then the statement “we know his testimony is true” at 21:24 is puzzling — who is this “we”? It makes more sense to read that verse as saying “He was our source, and he even wrote about it himself, and we trust that [written] source which we have drawn on here.” So it’s second-hand information.
Luke was not one of the 12 disciples. So he was NOT an eyewitness of the “resurrection.” Assuming he wrote Acts (again, it’s disputed), then he is recording what he heard eyewitnesses say. I disagree with you that Luke’s account of Peter’s words would be accepted by a court as “eyewitness testimony”. It’s not Peter’s own account; it’s Luke’s reporting of Peter’s words, recalled decades later (c. 80-90 BCE). Like you, I remember watching Ruby shoot Oswald; but I couldn’t swear to anyone’s exact words about that event at the time.
There is no eyewitness testimony of the risen Jesus. The purported witnesses did not write anything; we have no interviews with them. The texts you quote were written decades after the death of Jesus, the authors were not eyewitnesses, and we have no evidence that the authors spoke with any purported eyewitnesses. Given that human beings constantly create and modify stories over time, it is much more probable—especially in the context of ambiguous ancient history—that miraculous claims are fictional. David Hume’s assertion regarding miracles is as persuasive as ever: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
Please see my response to elizvand March 20, 2026 at 2:30 pm where I address your four points. Thanks. I agree with Hume’s assertion applied to the origin of species. In the beginning God created is way more likely than in the beginning absolute nothing created anything (like coded information in DNA).
However, resurrection from the dead(different from resuscitation) is not impossible and has occurred on numerous occasions. A famous incident was recorded in the late 1980’s where a girl(Katie) who was clinically pronounced dead came back to life three days later. Zero brain function, heart and lungs sustained externally…. She was dead. There’s way more to her fascinating story, and it can be read here:
Melvin Morse and Paul Perry, Closer
to the Light, N.Y.: Random House, 1990, 3-14
and Transformed by the Light, N.Y.: Random
House, 1992, 22-23
or here:
Evidence of an Architect, Eugene W. Emmerich III, pg.65
In a natural or miraculous sense the resurrection of Jesus is far more possible than the miracle of nothing producing something. It depends a lot on which “miracle” the heart wants to believe.
I appreciate your interest in the resurrection of Jesus debate. It’s the most important one(IMHO).
Apparently, you subscribe, contrary to scholarly consensus, to the traditional belief that the names ascribed to the gospels (such as “John”) were the authors. Scholars have compelling reasons why the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Among other reasons, the gospels are anonymous, Jesus’ disciples spoke Aramaic and were illiterate, whereas the gospels were written in Greek. I suggest you read Bart’s many posts on this subject, his Introduction to the New Testament, or any scholarly study Bible. As far as the claim for a modern resurrection: I have read many extraordinary claims over 50 years—Christian, non-Christian, healings, ghosts, psychic phenomena, alien visitations, etc. They invariably fall apart when scrutinized by the appropriate experts (including those who have specific expertise at detecting fraud and deception, such as magicians).
You allude to “origin of species.” To clarify, the theory of evolution does not address the origin of the universe or the origin of life (a fascinating field of study called Abiogenesis). But the evolution of life over billions of years is based on overwhelming evidence from biology, geology, genetics, and paleontology, such that most Christian scientists accept it, including Dr. Francis Collins. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “absolute nothing created anything.” If you are referring to the “Big Bang”, scientists do not claim that there was nothing before that event. There are many unknowns that scientists are working to understand—maybe they will discover an ultimate scientific answer to the origin of the cosmos, maybe they won’t. Science is fine with saying they don’t know when there is insufficient evidence, in contrast to many religious people who proclaim they know the absolute truth with nearly no evidence.
Yes, of course you’re right that the Big Bang is not the beginning of life! (though equally of course it would have been the necessary condition!) (thought I wasn’t saying thta either). As to whether something came out of nothing, it completely depends on which astro-physicist you are talking about that. As you know, there are some who have written books argued precisely that.disabledupes{7320fc1aa559941041d9374be4fbea3d}disabledupes
Hi Bart: Sorry, I mistakenly responded to you instead of ginoharmonica. Yes, Lawrence Krauss, for example, has stated as much regarding “nothing”, but he has been criticized for using the word idiosyncratically. A fascinating recent book “Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins” explains that there are several candidate theories in play. I don’t recall any of them proposing that the Cosmos came from nothing (meaning, no pre-existing matter, energy, laws, quantum flux, etc.) My key point with ginoharmonica was that science asserts claims based on evidence and accepts provisional knowledge while theism asserts dubious claims about the origin of the cosmos. As you know, it isn’t clear that Genesis teaches ex nihilo either.
I think the standard view of the Big Bang is precisely that it is what brought matter, energy, and the laws of physics along with time) into being. But I’ll let you work this one out with ginoharmonica!
I apologize firebrain you’re right, I meant origin of the cosmos not species. To Bart’s point. Even if matter existed before the big bang it still had to have a beginning. Entropy(2nd law thermodynamics) demands that matter had a beginning(Hydrogen/nitrogen). Singularity and multiverse theories merely delay the problem. If we say(incorrectly) that matter is eternal then we’ve given the attributes of God to matter/creation(please read Romans 1:20-25).
To elizvand’s point, it doesn’t matter if “John” the apostle or another John wrote the account, the author claims to be an eyewitness of the trial, crucifixion, empty tomb, and post resurrection interaction with Jesus. Patristic literature says that after Domitian’s death in 96ad this John was released from Patmos and brought his gospel to Ephesus(Irenaeus/Clement/Tertullian/Eusebius/Jerome). Whoever this was he claimed to be an eyewitness.
ALL Patristic literature says Mark’s gospel account comes from the mouth of Peter, Peter’s account………another eyewitness.
Luke(1:1-3) claims that what he wrote he received from eyewitnesses. Was he a liar/exaggerator/deceived? We only make those claims(discredit) if we don’t want to believe.
For those who don’t want to believe no proof is possible-Thomas Aquines
If a person doesn’t WANT TO believe they will find reasons not to.
Beautiful morning!Rejoice!
Matter did not exist before the big bang, in the standard theory. Either did entropy. Matter, energy, time, physical laws originated with the big bang. Seems weird, but there it is. And yes, if someone says that everything has to have had a beginning and therefore matter has to have had a beginning but that God does not have to have had a beginning then that would be a contradiction. If anyone wants to think that unlike everything else God does not have to have a beginning, that is a religious/theological claim, not a scientific one. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s no longer science, which ain’t the same thing.
I think we agree that there was a beginning/big bang. So I would think we have to agree that before that there was…..nothing, correct? Then scientifically speaking, we have to explain “the cause.” What/who caused this? Either a causer/creator caused this or it caused itself right? If nothing existed before the big bang then nothing caused something to exist. This would be more miraculous(not natural)than a rabbit laying eggs, a virgin birth or Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
Addressing your point that “God didn’t have a beginning is contradictory”(theological), God is Spirit….John 4:24 and spirit is neither matter,energy,space,nor time, it’s another dimension. Spirit not having a beginning is both science and theology(IMO). Will we evade this by saying there is no such thing as spirit; angels, demons, ghosts, deceased persons etc?
I want to address firebrain’s posts on our original subject of eyewitnesses, but will do it under: “Readers’ questions on the accuracy of the gospels.” I’m responding to Wpoe54 April 3. I hope firebrain sees it. I’m commenting on your book Forged.
Question: Paul speaks of the resurrection of Jesus(Acts26:8,21-26)and says,“you(Agrippa/Festus)know this is true, it wasn’t hidden from you or done in a corner.” Are Paul and Luke Liars?
The cause may be not only unknown but also unknowable, since our scientific knowledge cannot extend to before there was matter, energy, and physical laws (in part because technically speaking there cannot be a “before” the beginning of time). Weird as it is.
A liar is someone who intentionally tells an untruth that they know is an untruth in order to deceive others. Not all falsehoods are lies. No, I don’t think either of them was a liar, but there’s no way to know since we can’t get into their head to see if their intention was to deceive.