Lecture QA - Dr Peter Williams - New Evidences that the Gospels Were Written by Eyewitnesses
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- This is from The Lanier Library Lecture Series titled New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts by Dr Peter Williams given March 5, 2011
The authorship of the first four books of the New Testament has fascinated scholars for centuries. If the authors were eyewitnesses, one could assume greater reliability. If not, then questions are naturally raised about the historicity of details in the writings. Because the first three Gospels are so similar, many theories have been proposed and argued to explain the sources of verbatim sections, as well as the unique material. Did Mark rely on Peter for eyewitness details? Luke admits his use of other sources, but did he use Mark or Matthew or both? What about Matthew and John? New evidence in the discussion of these questions and more will be the focus of this lecture.
Dr. Peter Williams. is a biblical scholar and also the Director of Tyndale House, Cambridge.
The Lanier Theological Library is an exciting new resource for all students and scholars of the Bible. The LTL is a research library and is open to everyone who will use it responsibly. Within the library, you will find a comprehensive collection of books, periodicals, historical documents and artifacts with topics ranging from Church History and Biblical Studies to Egyptology and Linguistics. The LTL regularly hosts events with noted authors, guest lecturers, and researchers who will challenge you both academically and spiritually. Come to the Lanier Theological Library and find serious tools for serious study.
For more info on this: www.laniertheol...
For those interested in Dr Peter Williams and the translation work he is involved in here is a UA-cam clip from those proceedings here:
www.youtube.com...!
This summer the Translation Oversight Committee of the English Standard Version (ESV) met at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England to consider improvements in certain specific English word choices. For example, should the Hebrew word 'ebed and the Greek word doulos be translated "slave," "bondservant" or "servant"? The question involved lexicography, biblical theology, and both ancient and modern culture.
During deliberations, the BBC stopped by and filmed a segment, which they reduced to a four-minute clip--reflecting hours of discussion based on hundreds of hours of scholarly research. Speaking in the video are C. John Collins (Covenant Theological Seminary), Peter Williams (Senior Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge, and a past and future presenter in the Lanier Theological Library Lecture Series), Gordon Wenham (Trinity College, Bristol; son of the late John Wenham of Oxford, who contributed the Foreword to the second edition of The Fire That Consumes), Paul House (Beeson Divinity School), Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary), and Lane Dennis (Crossway Books & Bibles).
I am always prepared to listen with more interest to - someone who is not reluctant, at times, to say, "I don't know." (I don't have enough knowledge about that particular question).
The dating of the Gospels- I'd just add that "The time is at hand!" mentality may have kept them in more of an oral tradition initially. Only after decades would they come to realize- "Hey, we better start putting this down, Paul is already dead, a lot of the followers are dying off. Time to put it in a form that will last until the end of time!" This is probably why they was the initial gap of Jesus+Gospels. my 2 cents- Great upload, God Bless!
I like his stage presence. Most presenters are boring and appear purposely over-sophisticated.
Also compare the gospel accounts on what day jesus was crucified.
I would think that if something did really happen and if there were witnesses then they will have a consistent story, rather than conflicting stories. This does not have to come from collusion. If all four gospel accounts were consistent, then I am sure that people will cite that as evidence that resurrection is real. So regardless of whether the gospel account are consistent or not, it would seem that the answer is predetermined.
I witnessed a fatal car crash and I testified in court. Guess what? My testimony was different from the other witnesses. From my point of view, I could only see the coupe that hit the SUV. I actually thought the SUV was a truck. I didn't know that the SUV struck a pole which caused the fire. I just saw it caught fire. I thought I heard a strange wailing sound but I dismissed it as just my imagination. I later learned that the woman burned alive and the sound was her screaming. I thought I saw 3 men rush to her aid. There were actually 5. I didn't see all of them.
I was so focused on how fast the coupe was going that I can't tell how the SUV got in his path. When I read the final news report about it, I realized just how different my story was from what really happened. I remember what I was thinking prior to the crash. I remember how it affected me, how I got out of my car still on drive to walk towards the scene. I know what I saw. I know that I wasn't lying but another witness of the same scene has a different story. There are silly details I remember but significant details like the pole that I missed.
I was surprised that the police officers/lawyers were not at all surprised that my story was different. I learned later that this is expected. That's why police officers want to interview witnesses as soon as the event happens because reading news articles about the event may create bias among witnesses. When witnesses discuss what they saw, they begin to influence each other and their stories become more and more similar. When their stories are similar, it is less likely that you will get a clear picture of what actually happened.
J. Warner Wallace, as a cold-case homicide detective, explains this type of thing. Investigators absolutely expect variances in eye witness accounts, in most cases wide variances. It is the human factor; different people latch on to different things. If someone who is 5' high says the suspect was "tall" and someone who is 6'4" high says the suspect is "short", is it possible they are both correct, from their perspective? Absolutely. A suspect who is 5'1" to 6'3" would match both descriptions, would they not?
In fact, most investigators become suspicious if the eyewitness accounts *do* match up too precisely as it tends to be an indication of "collusion", aka, "hey, let's get our stories straight!" That is why they separate witnesses from each other for interviews.
When one thinks about it, given the above: The Gospels match up on some facts and give what would be considered "complimentary" points on others which sounds like typical eyewitness testimony.
The only "conflicts" in the Gospels come from modern day people people who don't understand the nature of eyewitnesses and/or lack the critical thinking skills necessary to "fit the pieces together."
Those are a lot of resurrection differences and your supposed to be a doctor, what you think doesn't count.
Hmmm where do we start? E.g. Compare gospel accounts on where Joseph and Mary was living before Jesus was born. Also compare the accounts on who saw the empty tomb, what they saw, what they were told and what they did. If resurrection is the most important bit about Christianity and if ppl actually saw the empty tomb then their eyewitness accounts should match in most detail.
not true. eye-witness testimony varies widely and is unreliable.
When is this guy going to admit that he doe'snt know ?I don't care what he believes.