The two thieves at Jesus’s crucifixion

[Michaelangelo]

Yes Greenleaf was indeed seen as an authority in law in the 1900’s. But I can’t find any information about him earning a degree in law other than honorary degrees. Furthermore, being christian he is not neutral in the case. And from which angle did he study the stories? Did he aim to prove then correct or did he try to falsify them? Lastly, the behavioral sciences have developed quite a bit since the first part of the 19’th century so our understanding of how to evaluate eyewitness accounts have indeed changed since then.

To enable us to objectively verify the truthfulness of their accounts.

How is obejctivity achieved here?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Yes.
And yet we see bible skeptics asserting two contradictory propositions.

1. The Gospels aren’t sufficiently identical - therefore they can’t be true.
2. The Gospels are too identical (plagiarised) - therefore they can’t be true.

 

[Lion_IRC]

It is almost as if the authors weren’t there at the scene.

Is a courtroom stenographer an author? Does a newspaper have to include the name of the author for every single piece of news they report?

I think you are conflating ‘author’ with source and the collective Gospel accounts are from sources who were eye witnesses at the scene.

Your bible skepticism seems to derive from the fact that one particular Gospel writer doesn’t mention every single event included in the account of another Gospel writer. This is an argument from silence (logical) fallacy. Lemme show you how the argument from silence works both ways…

None of the Gospel writers deny that Jesus said what He said to the repentant thief.

 

[TMC]

I think you are conflating ‘author’ with source and the collective Gospel accounts are from sources who were eye witnesses at the scene.

What are you basing this statement on? I don’t think anyone believes the authors of the Gospels were physically present at the crucifixion.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If a 60 year old, frail, hard of hearing, partially blind, eye witness is recounting to me what they saw at Calvary, and I’m writing down their testimony (as part of a collated historical account of events) it’s simply not correct to refer to me as the “author”.

Neither is it correct to say that the Gospels contain no eye witness accounts.

 

[Fill1sHeart]

I don’t think anyone believes the authors of the Gospels were physically present at the crucifixion.

John was there ?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Is a courtroom stenographer an author?

In my neck of the woods we don’t have stenographers in the courts. We’ve mved past that system. But I would argue the stenographer is the author of the text even if not the origin of the content.

Does a newspaper have to include the name of the author for every single piece of news they report?

I have no idea what the rules are in that business. But in our newspapers I’m pretty sure either the author of the article is presented or the original source for the information if it is merely a representation.

I think you are conflating ‘author’ with source and the collective Gospel accounts are from sources who were eye witnesses at the scene.

The author of Luke claims to have eyewitnesses as sources, yes. But neither Matthew or Mark claims that. So who were their sources for the crucifixion?

Your bible skepticism seems to derive from the fact that one particular Gospel writer doesn’t mention every single event included in the account of another Gospel writer.

Nope.

This is an argument from silence (logical) fallacy. Lemme show you how the argument from silence works both ways…
None of the Gospel writers deny that Jesus said what He said to the repentant thief.

Nor do they support it.

• According to Matthew 27:38-44 Jesus was mocked by people passing by as well as bystanders and the two other crucified. Nothing about any repenting thief.
• According to Mark this is exactly the same scenario. Nothing about a repenting thief.
• Luke gives the same scenario but describes that one of the other crucified defended him. What Luke does not do is reporting anything about one of the thieves first mocking him, then repenting and defending him.
• John, despite it being claimed that he was a witness to the crucfixion, never describes those events from a first person perspective nor anything about any mocking at all. That is all done by people who weren’t there.

So no, these stories does not add up, in my opinion. If I was on jury duty and was presented with these four stories I would dismiss them as not being credible.

 

[TMC]

If a 60 year old, frail, hard of hearing, partially blind, eye witness is recounting to me what they saw at Calvary, and I’m writing down their testimony (as part of a collated historical account of events) it’s simply not correct to refer to me as the “author” .

Neither is it correct to say that the Gospels contain no eye witness accounts.

I think your view on “author” is a bit semantic. The person that wrote the book is generally the “author,” even if someone else is the primary source.

As to eyewitness accounts, we do not know if the authors (or whatever word you choose) of the Gospels spoke to eyewitnesses.

We have tradition (small ‘t’) as to the identity of the authors. But even if you accept those traditions as completely accurate, we still don’t know that the authors of the Gospels ever spoke to someone who was at the crucifixion (although maybe John was there):

Mark - traditionally a scribe of Peter’s. Peter wasn’t there. Luke - traditionally a companion of Paul’s, Paul wasn’t there. Matthew - traditionally a disciple of Jesus, who wasn’t there. John - some say that the John of John’s Gospel is the John who was at Calvary, but that seems very unlikely.

 

[TMC]

John was there ?

I don’t think so. First, we don’t know that the fourth gospel was written by “John.” If it was, we don’t know which John. John was likely written between fifty and eighty years after the events of the Gospel, so if John was there he would have been very old. More likely, it was written by a member of the Johannine community.

Of course all of that is disputed by some…

 

[Lion_IRC]

I was on jury duty and was presented with these four stories I would dismiss them as not being credible

You’re really gonna make an argument from jury decision making? Isn’t that an ad populam fallacy?

Premiss (Your premiss)
Juries make accurate decisions about what is/isn’t credible.

Premiss - Juries are made up of Michaelangelo plus eleven other people.

Premiss - Juries are broadly representative of society at large.

Premiss - A society where biblical theism is the majority view will have juries which predominantly accept the credibility of the bible accounts upon which their theism rests.

Therefore - theistically biased jury decisions are reliable ???

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think your view on “author” is a bit semantic.

…says the person who claims their strict definition of the word is correct.

We don’t need the first and last name of the “author” .
We don’t need “the author” to be one single person.
We don’t need to preclude the possibility that “author” might not have been the person actually holding the pen and paper (so to speak).

 

[Michaelangelo]

You’re really gonna make an argument from jury decision making? Isn’t that an ad populam fallacy?

I fail to see why it would be such a fallacy?

Premiss (Your premiss)
Juries make accurate decisions about what is/isn’t credible.

Have I made any claim regarding juries capability of making accurate decisions about credibility?

Premiss - Juries are made up of Michaelangelo plus eleven other people.

Nope.

Premiss - Juries are broadly representative of society at large.

What has that to do with this matter?

Premiss - A society where biblical theism is the majority view will have juries which predominantly accept the credibility of the bible accounts upon which their theism rests.

I agree, this is a likely outcome for such a scenario.

Therefore - theistically biased jury decisions are reliable ???

Nope.

But if we now put your strawman aside and look at what I wrote you will see that I did not say anything about a jury of eleven, the social makeup of said jury or about a verdict of said jury. My point was that if I was presented this crucifixion story alone, from these four sources. I would not find it credible. I used the jury scenario to bring a context for which I would have this story presented to me. Mea culpa.

 

[TMC]

…says the person who claims their strict definition of the word is correct.

We don’t need the first and last name of the “author” .
We don’t need “the author” to be one single person.
We don’t need to preclude the possibility that “author” might not have been the person actually holding the pen and paper (so to speak).

I don’t see the point of arguing over the definition of “author,” what’s the point? What word would you use?

 

[Lion_IRC]

I don’t see the point of arguing over the definition of “author,”

Me either

 

[Lion_IRC]

Perhaps I was mistaken.
It sounded like you were saying…if a juror/jury found something credible then…

 

[Michaelangelo]

Perhaps I was mistaken.
It sounded like you were saying…if a juror/jury found something credible then…

I apologize if it seemed like that. English isn’t my first language so I make boo-boos now and then.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I’m just curious as to why none of the gospels would be in agreement on this aspect of the crucifixion.

They aren’t in disagreement.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

Perhaps I was mistaken.
It sounded like you were saying…if a juror/jury found something credible then…

I apologize if it semed like that. English isn’t my first language so I make boo-boo’s now and then.

English is my first language and I make a gazzilion boo boos.

 

[EndTimes]

It will rain on this planet tomorrow, is a very vague prophecy. When this propehcy has been fulfilled tomorrow will that be evidence for me being a prophet of god?

make that prophet of God because God is a proper noun

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

The Gospels are not the Gospel of copy and paste. Each of the Gospel writing down the events that are most important to them. For example if you and I are involved in this great event and we separately write an account. Of course things would be different because we wouldn’t be copying each other and by reading both of our accounts people could get the full and complete picture.