Loading...After posting on the (surprisingly good) eyewitness testimony to the miracles of the founder of Hasidic Judaism (the Besht) yesterday, I couldn’t resist saying a bit more about it, not from a purely anecdotal perspective but from the academic perspective of scholars engaged in actual research on the matter, research that is virtually ignored by conservative Christian biblical scholars who have written entire BOOKS on eyewitness testimony but appear to know very little about it as a phenomenon.
Here is another excerpt from my book devoted to the issue, Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016). (the book includes footnotes/references I won’t include here for the post)
******************************
In the history of memory studies an important event occurred in 1902.
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!
Maybe apologists should start with a small modern miracle-like story and see if eyewitness accounts can determine if it actually happened.
Did Babe Ruth actually “called his shot” before hitting a home run in the 1932 World Series? Today to then is approximately the same timeframe as Jesus’s crucifixion to when the last canonical NT texts where being produced and we have way better source materials to work with now. Should be easy right?
I suppose calling the shot isn’t a miracle per se, just cockiness that was then amazingly justified. (Lots of batters call the shot, and sometimes it actually happens….). The problem with examining a modern miracle is actually knowing if it happened. How would/could it be scientifically verified? Not by adding the number of eyewitnesses. I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear!
Off-topic: You consistently say that after Jesus died, he was buried. The gospels don’t say he was buried but put in a tomb hewed from solid rock, completely different than being buried. I am enough of a nerd that the difference bothers me. What is going on here?
I have been with you since the start. I dislike Mondays and Fridays because I don’t get “my Bart.” Just think, now we can say “The book comes out next week.”
“Bury” in this context simply means having the remains disposed of in a tomb, a grave, a pit, whatever.
Mondays and Fridays: hey check out the archives!
Great points. I was born the same day Disneyland opened, although separated by 2,000 miles. I have no memory of that day and certainly could not relate whether Disneyland’s opening was successful. However, we are both going strong, so are we connected in some way? No! Thinking that would be way too selective.
That being said, I do know where I was and what I was doing when President Kennedy was assassinated. Mainly because the neighbor lady across the street from our house ran across the street screaming to tell my mom. Loud and unique behavior. Also, I was waiting for a school bus – longer story – that allowed me to be outside playing at the time.
My point is that ‘memory cues’ are often necessary to form and recall memories. The suggestions by the researchers that a ‘film’ existed and could be seen, could have served as a memory cue that connected several pieces of information and caused those people to believe they saw a film. The mind is an interesting organ.
There is a phenomenon called ‘The Mandela Effect’ where a large number of people share a false memory. It takes its name from the fact that lots of people claim to remember a news bulletin stating that Nelson Mandela had died in prison, even though he didn’t and there was no such bulletin. Another example is the Monopoly logo man, who many people think wears a monocle, even though he doesn’t. I had a personal experience of this when I along with several other people remembered a particular photograph in a book now out of print. When second hand copies of the book were obtained, the photo was missing. Spooky.
Ah! Thanks.
Bart you said, “A report is not necessarily accurate because it is delivered by an eyewitness. On the contrary, eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate.” This statement is not true. Examine your state jury instructions under evidence, what do we find? The courts put high priority on “corroborated” eyewitness testimony because it’s in fact generally reliable.
You talk about cases involving eyewitnesses, overturned by DNA evidence as if it happens to the majority of cases. Since 1989, when the first DNA exoneration occurred, 18%of the cases were overturned. Of those 70%were cases involving witness testimony; that is 12.6%. Of those some were not conviction solely on witness testimony. So about 92 out of 100 convictions had eyewitness testimony which was considered reliable(statistics are from the Innocence Project and National Registry of Exonerations).
I’m proposing a forensic test/experiment. Doctor, give me your list of glaring contradictions in the gospel accounts &Acts(especially the resurrection) and I will redact all of those passages. Then let’s see what is “corroborated.”
You can’t invalidate ALL New Testament and Patristic literature because of contradictions. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m still hoping for your comments on Colin Hemer:Acts in Hellenistic History. 84 precise details,in Acts.
Sorry — but eyewitness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy. There are lots of studies of this, in the legal system. I’d suggest you read my book Jesus Before the Gospels and check out the studies by legal experts and psychologists. I’d suggest you start with the work of Elizabeth Loftus and Daniel Schachter. I read a ton of that stuff some years ago — did almost nothing else for two years. Quite astonishing.
Please don’t miss the fact that I greatly appreciate the amount of work that goes into research and your life’s dedication to it. So, here’s your reasoning: Some eyewitnesses are “notoriously unreliable,” therefore ALL eyewitness are unreliable-not trust worthy. And so you created “reasonable doubt.” But why then do ALL of the courts instruct jurors that eyewitness testimony is EVIDENCE and that they should evaluate it focused on corroboration?
Your argument is known as the Fallacy of Insufficient Sample; Hasty Generalization fallacy.
“It is a logical error where a broad conclusion is drawn about an entire group (all eyewitnesses) based on a small or unrepresentative sample of evidence (some eyewitnesses).
It moves from “Some A are B” (unreliable) to “All A are B.”
It assumes that because an attribute (unreliability) exists in some instances, it must exist in all instances. It ignores the possibility that many eyewitnesses are accurate.
Context: While studies show eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, the argument fails by treating an occurrence as a universal rule.”…..apply to the New Testament.
UNC-Philosophy/105
Please give me your list of eyewitness contradictions in the gospels&Acts and I will redact all of those passages. Then let’s see what is “corroborated.”Simple test.
Read my books. I give a number of examples, e.g., in Jesus Interrupted. disabledupes{9127836b3cb026422552dd83ca0d1b12}disabledupes
Dodge, parry, riposte: You never addressed the points I made. You avoided the fact that it’s flawed logic to say that ALL eyewitnesses(especially Acts and gospels)are unreliable because some are unreliable. You’re also avoiding testing our documents by redaction(you know what it will show).
Here’s a classic example of problems created by rejecting eyewitness testimony. The Warren Commission rejected the testimony of twelve railroad workers and two cops that said the kill-shot(of JFK) came from the front. Bill and Gayle Newman, 40 feet away(iconic picture of them covering their kids)said on live TV 30 minutes later, “from the front.”
https://youtu.be/iC1ebqkXGTk?si=P72Gl6-87nrKB9K7
Senator Yarborough smelled gunpowder from the front. He and the railroad workers saw the gun-smoke in front, and because some heard shots from the depository(rear) the commission rejected eyewitness testimony. They rejected the testimony of depository employees that Oswald was on the 1st floor getting change and then on the 2nd floor buying a soda at the exact time JFK was shot. The commission erroneously concluded “Oswald: lone gunman,” helping the real assassin avoid apprehension.
Bart, aren’t you doing the same thing? Rejecting Peter’s statements that ALL of the apostles were resurrection witnesses(1stPeter1:3,Acts1:22,2:32,4:33,5:30-32,10:40-41…etc)and claiming Luke couldn’t be correct?
CONTINUE:
I have never said all eyewitnesses are unreliable.
Have you read the extensive writings of Lofton and the work of Schachtel? I don’t now of serious refutations of *them* on the issue.
The agenda of Satan from the beginning(Genesis3:1-5)was to get people to not trust God by discrediting his words, “God didn’t really say that did He?” I see his fingerprints on the work of many scholars that push the same agenda; to discredit/void/invalidate/refute/reject and cause distrust in the Word of God/New Testament(1st Thessalonians2:13). Have they unintentionally become Satan’s executors/emissaries?
How we see the eyewitness’s claims is critically important. If we are correct in our assessment that they are unreliable we gain nothing. If we are wrong we make the biggest mistake possible: missing the reception of eternal life and resurrection from the dead. If the eyewitnesses are correct/reliable, the gain is incalculable. If Atheists are wrong, the loss is unfathomable. According to Blaise Pascal non-participation in the Wager is not possible.
I was considering buying three of your books; Jesus before the gospels, Jesus Interrupted, and How God became Jesus. I want to know *exactly* WHY you believe the way you do. I want to know how you arrive at Q, why you reject the eyewitness claims(Jesus’ resurrection), and how you see the development of the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Will these books get me there?
Satan is not mentioned in Genesis 1-3.
There are no eyewitness testimonies in the gospels. They are all hearsay reported anonymously. Also, your “redact”ing challenge is not remotely a valid test – it misses a major point of eyewitness cross-examinations in trials. When eyewitnesses are incorrect in some claims, it is taken as evidence that they cannot be relied upon for their other claims.
Your point about cross-examination is excellent. 1st Corinthians 15:1-6, in context of people being witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says that there were 500 people who, at the same time, witnessed Jesus alive after his crucifixion. Paul says that most of those witnesses were still alive at the time he was writing and implies that if the reader doesn’t believe it those who were still alive could be cross-examined.
However, your claim that there are no gospel eyewitnesses is incorrect, John 19, 20 and 21 he claims he is a first person eyewitness of the crucifixion, empty tomb and resurrection. We know who John was from Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus; late first and second century.
Also, your comment, “When eyewitnesses are incorrect in some claims, it is taken as evidence that they cannot be relied upon for their other claims.” Is incorrect. I don’t know which state you live in, but read your state jury instructions under “Evidence” and “Witnesses.” It says something different. Propensity for honesty and corroboration are considered leading factors in the evaluation process.
Your Honor. I rise to question the witness under voir dire. Will this Cephas fellow please be brought to the stand?
Though I enjoy the style of your rebuttal, it still fails to distinguish between different arenas. If one requires a living eyewitness to testify to all claimed facts, well, there goes ALL historical knowledge, pretty much up to the last generation.
The fact is the logic governs historians is different from the logic that governs the courtroom. In the courtroom, FACTS are not actually the point. Case in point: two detectives have examined the apartment of a suspect and gathered overwhelming evidence of his guilt. They have every historical criterion on their side. Unfortunately, the defense points out that the two detectives entered the suspect’s apartment without a warrant. Case thrown out.
Historians are not (or should not be) apologists, on any point of the spectrum, whether arguing for a theological belief or against one. Historians seek (or should seek) the truth. They are thus not limited to actual eyewitnesses (which do not exist when dealing with questions of antiquity); they deal with plausibility, which requires a theory to harmonize as many facts as possible. If a theory fails to harmonize numerous facts, facts which can only be given speculations, then that theory should be abandoned.
As someone who’s been on a jury (twice in fact, both were civil trials), I know it’s true that courts emphasize the value of eyewitnesses, but also I’ve experienced problems with them. Both cases featured eyewitness testimonies that contradicted each other. None of the folks were consciously lying (and thus committing perjury) as far as I could tell. But each time, they can’t all have been right about what they saw. On top of that, one of the witnesses went on to say something that was different from what he’d said earlier. That was picked up during cross and that only made things even dicier.
It’s not enough just to say eyewitnesses tend to be reliable. It’s not even enough to have statistics that seem to back that up (as you did). When evaluating a court case or reaching a historical judgement, the specific eyewitnesses have to be reliable, in and of themselves, and in conjunction with any other evidence there might be. Only that counts. Statistics and generalities cease to matter.
FWIW it’s not easy being a juror. This is only one of the reasons why.
VonLizt’s students remembered the details inaccurately, but it is my educated guess they had the basics right. (They had percentages of the details wrong, but it follows they had the reverse percentages of the details right.) So they had some level of accuracy. Isn’t that partial accuracy of eyewitnesses of some importance?
Frequently eyewitnesses can get the gist right but the details wrong. So apologists have a point, even if I disagree with them.
Yes, every part of an eyewitnesse’s testimony is right. The BIG question is “how much is gist”? That is, what counts as gist and what as detail. If an eyewitness claims she saw George shoot Fred, but the only thing she gets right is that Fred was shot, does that make her testimony valuable since the gist is right?
Good point. I suppose the important thing is that eyewitness testimony is only weak evidence for natural events & even weaker evidence for the supernatural.
To those who accept the gospels present an historical account I point to L. Michael White’s ‘Scripting Jesus’.
Fifty plus years ago as an undergrad I remember reading ‘Daily Life in the Time of Jesus’ or a similar title. Memory lapsing a bit. 🙂
White goes beyond much of daily life to include a world view pervasive with religious understandings, e.g. thorough acceptance of magic, superstitions, belief in dying and rising gods, elevation of important people to divine status, the ‘divine-man’ belief, etc. The ‘Daily Life’ book did not explain such beliefs. In particular people educated enough to read and write, i.e. the gospel writers, knew and used these beliefs. To ignore that the gospel authors used and incorporated these features is to ignore why gospel differences exist, much about everyday life and people’s mental framework during that time period. The gospel authors, an educated minority, wrote stories – meant to be read aloud – for their particular audiences using a variety of sources from within their cultural world view. They present Jesus purposefully within a mystical world view their audiences understood. They wrote stories not history, although some historical props are used.