Search This Blog

Monday, February 8, 2010

Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable?

Most Christian apologists, (for example, see Eyewitness Testimony for Jesus' Resurrection Appearances by Gary Habermas), believe that the case for Christianity is strong because of alleged eyewitness testimony to the life, death, and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I say alleged eyewitness testimony because, apart from Paul's five words in 1 Cor. 15:8, it is not an established fact that we even have true eyewitness testimony of the resurrection. What we have are second and third hand accounts from those who claim they spoke with eyewitnesses or we have anonymous writings from those who claim to have been eyewitnesses.)

Even if we assume, however, that there is genuine eyewitness testimony of the events in the life of Jesus recorded in Scripture, then there is still the question of the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Below is a quote from Oral Tradition as History by Jan Vansina (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985). Vansina is widely recognized as one of the leading authorities on the subject of the oral transmission of history.

Here is what he says about eyewitness testimony:
In the best of circumstances, even the best of witnesses never give a movie-like account of what happened, as all accounts of accidents show. Eyewitness accounts are always a personal experience as well and involve not only perception, but also emotions. Witnesses often are also not idle standers-by, but participants in the events. Furthermore, an understanding of what happened cannot occur through mere data of perception. Perceptions must be organized in a coherent whole and the logic of the situation supplies missing pieces of observation. The classical cases of car accidents or purse snatching document this to satiety. A witness reporting a car accident typically first heard a smash, then saw it, then deduced how it happened—how both cars were traveling before the accident after which he or she built up a coherent account of the incident. Usually he did not see the two cars before the accident drew attention to them. Most witnesses cannot resolve themselves to build up a story starting with a noise and the result of the accident first. If a witness was traveling in one of the stricken cars, much of what took place happened at a speed greater than his own reaction time allowed him to perceive. Such persons often only remember one or two images of the accident. Yet when called upon to tell what happened, they must become coherent and build up a tale in which the logic of the situation makes up most of the account. (pp.4-5)

Eyewitness accounts are only partly reliable. Certainly it is true that complex or unexpected events are perhaps rarer than simple, expected events. Yet even here the account remains imperfect. The expectation of the event itself distorts its observation. People tend to report what they expect to see or hear more than what they actually see or hear. To sum up: mediation of perception by memory and emotional state shapes an account. Memory typically selects certain features from the successive perceptions and interprets them according to expectation, previous knowledge, or the logic of “what must have happened,” and fills the gaps in perception. (p. 5)
Note several things from Vansina's statements.

1. Eyewitness accounts are always a personal experience and involve not only perception, but also emotions. Witnesses often are also not idle standers-by, but participants in the events.

If there is genuine eyewitness testimony in the Scriptures, it is from individuals who are not objective by-standers but individuals who have a "stake in the claim." This automatically makes their testimony somewhat suspect.

2. Furthermore, an understanding of what happened cannot occur through mere data of perception. Perceptions must be organized in a coherent whole and the logic of the situation supplies missing pieces of observation.

If there is genuine eyewitness testimony in Scripture, it is from individuals who had to "make sense" of what they saw. They interpreted what they saw in accordance with their world view, which in the first century, was one in which the supernatural realm (angels, demons, God, etc.) regularly invaded the natural realm. So, their testimony is "colored" by their world view, a world-view which is largely rejected today.

3. The expectation of the event itself distorts its observation. People tend to report what they expect to see or hear more than what they actually see or hear.

In other words, all personal testimony is subjective. People interpret the events in light of their emotional connection to the person(s) involved and in light of what they see as compatible with their overall set of beliefs about a person or an event.

As Vansina says: To sum up: mediation of perception by memory and emotional state shapes an account. Memory typically selects certain features from the successive perceptions and interprets them according to expectation, previous knowledge, or the logic of “what must have happened,” and fills the gaps in perception.

So, the claim to eyewitness testimony in Scripture, even if true (and that is far from certain), does not guarantee the authenticity of the events therein described.

Recently, a thorough defense of the eyewitness testimony reported in the Bible has been written by Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament at St. Andrews University in Scotland. It is entitled: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony. This work is probably the best possible defense of the claim of eyewitness testimony in the New Testament. I will interact with this book in upcoming posts.

15 comments:

  1. Normally, I wouldn't cite Oprah, but she did a fascinating show on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, and actually involved the audience and viewers in it.

    At the beginning of the show, she saw that there weren't enough chairs on stage, so she had one brought out on camera. The gentleman got halfway up the stairs, then tripped and the chair flew across the stage.

    1/2 hour later, she had the audience fill out a questionaire about the incident. More than half the questionaires were wrong as to the man's race, 75% were wrong about the color of his shirt, very few people accurately described his pants, height or weight. Mind you, this was 30 minutes later, not decades later, as the gospels were supposedly written.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ken,

    Just take a look at Matthew 28. You will find that even when the disciples saw Jesus, they doubted; however, when they heard the voice, they knew it was him. The powerful honesty of the Scriptures is what always hits me. I would have left that little line about doubt out; however, they were recording an historical event and gave an accurate portrayal.

    You have multiple senses involved in confirming the resurrection of Christ. When taking the gospels as a whole, you will find that all five senses were used to confirm that it was Jesus. There just is not any stronger evidence than this.

    The denial of all your senses is what you are advocating which is really absurd!

    God Bless..

    ReplyDelete
  3. When was Matthew 28 written? How do you know when it was written? What was the purpose of the author of Matthew - to give a CNN like report or evangelism?

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, ZDENNY is clearly correct. The gospels predate the invention of verisimilitude in storytelling. You know the practice of adding odd or intriguing little details to make a story seem more plausible or lifelike? They hadn't invented that when the gospels were written.

    As a matter of fact, that practice wasn't developed until 1573. The man who invented it - a Welshman named Jason Baird - was actually the great-grandfather of the man who invented the bicycle. Baird himself, unfortunately, was an utter failure as a novelist, and his works were lost to history. However, the practice of 'bairding' one's stories caught on, and has been with us ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "that all five senses were used to confirm that it was Jesus"

    Okay, who tasted Jesus? I am guessing John since he was "loved" by Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ::snerk:: Beamstalk, you very nearly cost me a keyboard.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Is Eye-Witness testimony reliable?"

    A Christian might say: I guess that would have to depend on what your definition of "eye-witness" and "reliable" is.

    Because according to some religious people, they believe Jesus walked on water... without any evidence... because they have a book of authoritative eye-witness accounts. (Not really anyway)

    But when these same believers are asked if they were to see Chris Angel or David Blaine walk on water they often state they'd be highly skeptical, and probably not believe it anyway--because those guys are magicians. *sigh. Logic fails again.

    This is assuming there was a historical Jesus Christ to even be eye-witness to. Now I know there must be a historical shadow hovering just in the distance, but really what can we know that is historically viable? Not much. Certainly no genuine eye-witness testimonies exist, only stories of eye-witness testimonies about a person that may not even have existed. Not exactly the same thing.

    So trusting your senses about things that don't even exist only makes sense if you conclude they don't exist. And partially reliable testimony is dependent on there being any genuine testimony to speak about. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It seems to me most here are trying to convince themselves not to believe in a God who loves us.

    The consistency of the scriptures is the most compelling fact which makes the scriptures reliable.

    We can discuss all day about eye witness accounts; however, the subjects they speak about with such great consistency are far more than coincidence or folklore.

    The fact the authors came from so many different time frames, backgrounds, and positions in life; yet they speak about so many subjects with such great agreement and consistency amazes me.

    Just like this blog, if we could take ten people from one time frame, from similar backgrounds, and ask them to write about one subject,there would be a much disagreement.

    The scriptures are to be marveled and their writers to be respected. Besides a miracle is not beyond God.

    ReplyDelete
  10. TCW,

    I can't speak for others but I am not trying to convince myself there is no God. I just don't find any credible reason to believe any longer. As for a God who loves us--I guess he really loves those poor Haitians too? And what about the more than 25,000 children who starve to death every day? I guess he really loved those Canannites he ordered destroyed in the OT. He really loves my friends daughter who developed childhood leukemia? Yep, he is really loving.

    As for the consistency of the Scripture--1. Its not completely consistent as you find one gospel in the OT, one in the Gospels and another in the writings of Paul. The OT god ordered his people to kill their enemies, Jesus said to love them and turn the other cheek. I could go on and on with the contradictions.

    The reason they seem somewhat consistent is that they were selected from many other writings of the time. One of the criteria for acceptance was that they were similar in their teachings. In addition, these writings underwent years and years of editing and tweaking to help them appear consistent.

    Think about it. Study history. Be open-minded and you will see how silly it is to believe that the Bible is really from a divine being.

    ReplyDelete
  11. TCW has a great point when he stated, "The consistency of the scriptures is the most compelling fact which makes the scriptures reliable."

    I know of Bible critics who thought the whole OT was written by one writter because of their consistency. It is amazing.

    I think Ken doesn't realize that we can know the love of God because of the Holy Spirit who indwells us. The difference between the OT and the NT is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God hasn't changed; rather, God doesn't need to weed the garden so that his precious plants can grow.


    In the OT, Israel could never stay on course; however, in the NT the church begins to grow universally because of the Spirit that works through the body of Christ.

    Thanks for the reminder TCW!

    ReplyDelete
  12. > The consistency of the scriptures is the most compelling fact which makes the scriptures reliable.

    It would be if there was consistency but there isn't. The resurection story is different in each rendering with none of them agreeing. When the tomb was visited, who visited, what they saw, what happened all are different.

    If the stories are the third-hand copies of second-hand accounts by individuals with their own agendas decades after the fact these differences make total sense.

    If, however, the bible is absolute truth and the inspired, inerrant word of an almighty and all-knowing god such differences are inexcusable.

    Willful dismissal and denial of these differences -- now that is what I find absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The only reason that there is "consistency" in the gospels is because they are all basically expanded versions of Mark.

    Matthew, Luke, (possibly Marcion), and John weren't written to compliment Mark. They were written to replace Mark. They ARE Mark... just Mark 2000, Mark XP Home, Mark XP Professional, and Mark Vista :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. For example, suppose we ask whether or not God is loving and that Jesus is divine. Christians will say yes to both, but the Christian concept of God is clearly WRONG. (Bible ignorance strikes again!) Apparently, the New Testament is quite clear on the issue, and when compared the the character of God explained in the Old Testament, we find it makes it abundantly clear that God cannot be all good if Jesus is divine, and if Jesus is divine then God cannot be good. Let me explain:

    http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/02/god-is-love-or-jesus-is-divine-but-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Expanded editions of Mark, exactly.

    Mark XP. lol

    And they also incorporate the mysterious Q programming. :p

    ReplyDelete