Historian's Rules #1: Eyewitness Sources

1. Definition

1.1. Webster: one who sees an occurrence or an object especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen "Definition of eyewitness," https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eyewitness (accessed May16, 2020).

2. Scholarly Explanation

2.1. ;Keener: While eyewitness claims do not constitute indisputable proof, they do constitute evidence that may be considered rather than a priori dismissed.1 I am much more convinced of this perspective now than when I began this book. Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts & 2, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 2.

2.1.1. Bauckham:Though the writers of the Synoptic Gospels incorporate and fashion their sources into an integrated whole, a biography (bios) of Jesus, they remain close to the ways in which the eyewitnesses told their stories and transmitted the sayings of Jesus. They are collections of such stories and sayings, selected, combined, arranged, and adapted, but with only a relatively small degree of freely created interpretative comment and addition. They have preserved the formal character of their sources to a much greater extent than most Greco-Roman historians did. The latter generally assimilated their sources into seamless, comprehensive narratives strongly expressive of their own developed interpretations of the history they related.38 This is why, for example, the Gospel of Mark seemed to Papias more like a historian’s notes than a finished work of historiography, what Mark took down from the eyewitnesses (in this case Peter) but had not worked up into a developed narrative of his own. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 410.

3. Scholarly Dissent

3.1. Redman, Judith. “How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2010, Vol. 129 (1), pp: 177–197. ISSN: 0021–9231 Richard Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006), argues for the credibility of those who were witnesses to what Jesus said and did. But there are good reasons for questioning the reliability of eyewitness testimony, based on studies in psychology. Among these studies are: Frederic Bartlett’s analysis of the way we remember stories; David Rubin’s “Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epics, Ballads, and Counting-Out Rhymes”; Daniel Shacter’s “The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers”; “Flashbulb Memories” by Roger Brown and James Kulik; Roediger’s essay, “Social Contagion of Memory”; Reid Hastie, “Eyewitness Testimony: The Dangers of Guessing”; Sutherland’s “The Effect of Post-Event Information,” and many more. The cumulative weight of such studies is enough to make us wonder, at any rate, about Bauckham’s willingness to accept their reliability. Bauckham has responded in print to his critics on at least two occasions: “In Response …” in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 2008, v. 6, p. 225–253, and also “Eyewitnesses and Critical History” in Journal for the Study of the NT, 2008, v. 31, p. 221–235.

3.2. Rejoinder:

3.3. ME: Specific Historians: Loose standards for secular historicity. Yet apparently, few have a problem with accepting the historicity of Alexander the Great, for example.

4. Secular Historical Examples

4.1. Alexander the GreatIf John had been written during the second century, that in itself would not make it unreliable. It is not uncommon for other records from antiquity—which critics accept—to be written centuries after the events about which they speak. The earliest life of Alexander the Great was written 200 years later, yet it is used by historians as a reliable source of information. But there is no evidence that John was written so late. No testimonial or documentary evidence contradicts the explicit claims to be an eyewitness of what Jesus said and did. John records: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). In context the statement clearly identifies the author as the apostle John. There is no evidence to the contrary, so the prima facie case for an authentic Gospel is strong. Norman L. Geisler, “John, Gospel Of,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 389.

4.2. ME: Top scholar Peter Green in his work Alexander of Macedon… A RRIAN Flavius Arrianus (second century A.D. ). A Greek from Bithynia, who governed Cappadocia under Hadrian, saw military action during the Alan invasion of 134, and studied under Epictetus. His History of Alexander , based largely on Ptolemy and Aristobulus, is still the soundest study of Alexander (though by no means so sound as romantic enthusiasts sometimes like to pretend: he is a master of artful omission). History of Alexander and Indica , ed. and tr. E. I. Robson (L), 2 vols., London, 1929—33 (both text and translation are highly erratic). Arrian's Campaign of Alexander , tr. Aubrey de Selincourt, London (Penguin Classics), revised edition with introduction and notes by J. R. Hamilton, 1972. Green, Peter. Alexander of Macedon, 356323 B.C.: A Historical Biography . University of California Press. Kindle Edition.

4.3. See AGAIN: Criteria for Historicity "Since the Bible comes to us in human form, we can agree that, though God’s word, it can be subjected to criticism. But then the same kind of criticism should be applied to the Bible that is applied to other documents—not more demanding—and the same kind of criteria should be used—not more stringent or unrealistic ones." Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 43.

4.4. Conversely, and despite historian's highly probable assurance that Alexander's exploits can be measured and analyzed as historically accurate, alleged events leading up to the American Revolutionary War remain more reliable. Namely, historians retain original autographs and documents emanating from eyewitnesses. "Boston Committee of Correspondence," http://americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/crisis/text6/bostonpamphlet.pdf, (accessed May 18, 2020).

5. Biblical Historical Example Unrelated to Demon Existence or Activity

5.1. Eyewintess example: The Book of Exodus contains evidence of being written by an eyewitness. Only such a person would recall, for example, that there were 12 fountains and 70 palm trees at Elim (Ex 15:27). The author shows a thorough knowledge of Egyptian court life, customs, and language. Some of the materials used to construct the tabernacle, such as acacia wood for its furniture (Ex 25:10) and rams’ skins for the outer covering (Ex 25:5), are found in Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, but not in Palestine. The book thus seems to have had a desert setting. Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Exodus, Book Of,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 737.

5.2. New Testament: For example, John (5:2) mentions five colonnades at the pool of Bethesda. Excavations between 1914 and 1938 uncovered this pool and found it to be just as John described it. Since that pool did not exist in the second century, it is unlikely any second-century fraud would have had access to such detail about persons, places, geography, and topography. Norman L. Geisler, “John, Gospel Of,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 389.