Johnny Skeptic

In ' The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,' authors Gary Habermas and Michael Licona say the following:

"It seems that from Peter and James, Paul received this list of appearances, or at least the material on which it is based. Jesus’ appearances are included in the statement that Paul passed along to the Corinthians (15:3-7). Intriguingly, besides Paul himself (15:8), Peter and James are the only two eyewitnesses named in Paul’s list. We seem to have a fairly tight network here. Even though these are ancient events, Howard Clark Kee reminds us that these reports ‘can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.'"

A modern court or academic setting? What would the American Bar Association have to say about this? Will Habermas, Licona or Kee ask them? You can bet that they won't. The Gospel writers do not claim to be eyewitnesses, so the best that they can be is second hand evidence. Since the writers never reveal their sources, the possibility that the Gospels are third hand or fourth hand evidence cannot logically be ruled out.

The issue of borrowing is important. The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that the gospel of Mark “is attributed to John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke." So much for William Lane Craig's "multiple, independent attestations."

S.C.Carlson

In a modern court, I suppose the gospels and epistles could be admitted into evidence under the "ancient documents" exception to the hearsay rules. How they get evaluated is up to the jury (which the law treats almost like a black-box).

Stephen

Steven Carr

Actually they couldn't.

You have to admit documents into court, and which physical pieces of paper would be chosen to be admitted into court? p52?

Even after choosing a particular manuscript as the document you want admitted into court, you would then have to show it was an accurate copy of the original.

Preferably a signed copy......

S.C.Carlson

Under the Best Evidence Rule, you can admit copies if the original is lost or destroyed. Under most formulations of the rule, you can even admit a facsimile of Codex Vaticanus rather than the parchment manuscript itself.

As for accuracy of the copy, it will be a battle of experts. Competent textual critics can easily be found to testify to the "virtually certain" accuracy of the readings rated "A" or better in the USB4 edition. Which experts could be found to testify against those readings?

Come to think of it, since there is a consensus in academia that the UBS critical edition is substantially accurate, the entire N.T. could get admitted into evidence under Judicial Notice.

Stephen

Steven Carr

Of course, but you need proof that the copying is accurate.

What is the original of which Vaticanus is a copy?

But the UBS critical edition is not an ancient document. I know Bruce Metzger is getting on a bit, but he is not that old.

Which ancient documents would be admitted into court?

S.C.Carlson

I never said it was. The UBS is an expert's assessment of what parts of a manuscript such as Vaticanus--by a preponderance of the evidence--represents the original. The best way to admit that into evidence is by calling a textual critic.

In this case, however, getting the ancient documents admitted into evidence isn't a big deal. Jury selection is.

Johnny Skeptic

Steven Carr said that there is no proof that the copies accurately represent the orginals. That is of course true, but Farrell Till says that even if the copies are 100% accurate representations of the originals, that does not mean that the originals are true. Did the originals actually include Paul's claim of the 500 eyewitnesses? Dr. Robert Price told me “The astonishing absence from the gospels of anything remotely like the appearance to the 500 is fatal for the early date of this tale! Surely such a ‘report’ would be well-known (by definition, if it began with half a thousand people!). Needless to say, outside of 1st Corinthians there is no reference to it anywhere until a variant reading in a copy of the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus from the 4th century!�

Toto

This is a hoary apologist argument, that the Bible is sufficient evidence for a court of law. I don't think it stands up very well in modern times, since 1) the public has been made aware of a number of high profile cases where the jury came to a "wrong" decision, and 2) jurors now expect DNA evidence in any case.

It is hard to think of a case where someone would need to or want to use the NT as evidence in a modern court.

Johnny Skeptic

Toto wrote:

This is a hoary apologist argument, that the Bible is sufficient evidence for a court of law. I don't think it stands up very well in modern times, since 1) the public has been made aware of a number of high profile cases where the jury came to a "wrong" decision, and 2) jurors now expect DNA evidence in any case.

Johnny: That is quite good, Toto. In addition, in murder cases a suspect cannot be convicted without a unanimous consensus among the jurors that he has committed a murder, and billions of people (jurors) most certainly do not agree that the New Testament documents are true.

Steven Carr

I am not a lawyer, but Richard Packham was, and his article on the subject is pretty definitive

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../montgmry.html