Jeffrey Gibson

I trust you are searching the Greek text of these Gospels. If not, why not?

And why limit your search to statements/speeches of Jesus?

Jeffrey

Gamera

Wonder no more. There are substantial empirical studies of memory and its constructive nature. It is well known in legal contexts (and there are experts in the field that testify on this all the time).

So your remonstrations that "legal theory" would expect witnesses to tell the same exact story is totally unsupported.

Like I say, complex events (say three years in the life of an itinerant preacher) are very unlikely to be described by different witnesses exactly the same way. Indeed, I could get a expert witness to give an opinion on that very point (and indeed have).

So whatever historiagraphical criticism one has about the gospels (and they are many), the fact that there are inaccuracies, errors and contradictions in these texts do not go to that.

Gamera

I hear you. It's called "testi-lying" in America, and one of the traits is the exactitude of details among the perjurers. Ordinary people (especially under stress) simply do not experience the same event the same way when it comes to details (and often when it comes to big things!)

That's why it is proverbial that one of the weakest forms of evidence against a defendant is witness identification. It is downright wrong much of the time.

Gamera

I'm not arguing there aren't major discrepancies (though what determines a major discrepancy in the context is a thorny issue; depends on the purpose of the narrative). All I am saying that you would expect some discrepancies in accounts of the same event by different witnesses, so the fact that there are such discrepancies in the gospels is not an index of forgery or fiction, but the opposite.

Gamera

Well, and it is probably even more complex than that. Authors are writing from a source, and maybe at the same time several sources, and maybe at the same time they have an informant who is the great grandson of a witness and retells family history (which also may have gotten confused with sources which were also read by family members). So inconsistencies just are not very telling as to the historicity of an ancient text like the gospels.

Gamera

Both questions are pretty meaningless. Generally, you weigh the credibility of witnesses by listening to them answer questions. It is a complex determination.

Here we don't have the witnesses, just a narrative that came from sources that may or may not have come from witnesses.

The point is, the fact that there are discrepancies in the various gospels is not unexpected even if the authors were writing directly from witness interviews (and I'm not even making that radical claim).

Gamera

Not only am I really a lawyer, I'm really staying on topic and not making personal comments, unlike some people who are apparently too threatened to do so.

I think most people understand the meaning and most people understand that most of the "inconsistencies" in the gospel narratives are details that don't really affect the purpose of the story.

Is that what your really think I wrote, or are you just being coy for no apparent reason?

We're comparing two witness accounts, to determine credibility. You for reasons unknown to me, now want to compare subsets in each account. I see a difference, don't you?

How about this.

Witness A: John got shot by a gunman with dark hair and dark eyes.

Witness B: John got shot by a gunman with dark hair, but his eyes were light, I'm sure of it.

This kind of testimonial discrepancy happens everyday with truthful witnesses.

No, no, this is using your absurd example, not my logic, which acknowledges that truthful witnesses often confuse details, an empircally verifiable truth.

I would say something more like, the fact that there are discrepancies is consistent with sources from truthful witnesses. Now what is your point again?

This is a big ball of confusion.

First, we were talking about discrepancies between gospels, not internal inconsistencies.

Second, while inconsistency of testimony is an index of false testimony, the witness always has the right to explain the inconsistency (and often they do so quite easily). Since the authors of the gospels aren't here to explain the inconsistency, your standard is a bit misplaced. But don't let that stop you.

aa5874

But, it is not the discrepancies of the same event, in some cases, that indicate the veracity of the story, it is the parts that are identical.

Witness A. John got shot at 2 pm.
Witness B. John got shot at 3 pm.

In this case the discrepancies may not alter the fact or belief that John was shot. However, the discrepancies have now put some doubt as to when exactly the shooting occurred.

aa5874

To show that discrepancies do not add to the veracity of of any statement, I will refer to the so-called last words of the NT Jesus.

Matthew 27.46, "Now about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 16.34, "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani? which is being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23.46, And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit, and having said thus , he gave up the ghost.

John 19.30, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished, and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Three different versions of the last words of Jesus, and even though two of them appear to be identical, these very two and indeed all of them may not be true and it is not known which of these have discrepancies.

Solo

No, what I would expect is that the story to be corroborated. I would not make anything of the witnesses saying the same thing of an event until I had a cause. You follow ?


No, you would not expect that. But you would not expect either three out of four witnesses say the preaching tour lasted one year.

The twistedness of the argument that that somehow the lack of agreement guarantees verity because too close an agreement may be be proven to be falsified, should be apparent to anyone with a thinking head.

One cannot employ a theory of "constructive nature of memory" to support the facticity of gospels because you can explain both the textual agreements and disagreements with it.


But you claimed something different, to wit:

I would be the first one to take on someone who would argue that the casting of lots for Jesus' garments is a proof positive that Jesus was not crucified because an expert psychological testimony established that the fulfilment of Ps 22:18 in Mark is evidence of impaired cognitive function common among people suffering from complex partial seizures. Even if this pattern of fulfilled prophecy is consistent, and Mark seems to be even aware of it (14:65), the literary fabrications may well relate to a real event, of which Mark have had some reports and which he adapted to his purpose.

But I would not argue from some patently false general statement, which misapprehends the application of expertise to a concrete situation under scrutiny.


Jiri