Can the skeptical commenters here please lift their game? There are plenty of insults - "pathetic", "nonsense", "long-winded load of double-talk", "tripe", "BUNK", "outlandish", "magic", "utter baloney", "falacious", "monkey-text", "ridiculous" - but very little comprehension, let alone interaction.
If anyone wants to read the detailed version of the information contained within this presentation, please look up the following book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
Not one shred of evidence presented that these gospels were of eyewitness accounts. Presented nothing but correlations. Then, after 51 minutes he asked, "Can we prove it? Then he answers, no.
Jesus explained the key to being able to understand. He said in John 7:17 "If anyone wants to do His (God's) will, he will understand whether the teaching is from God...." If you are not interested in doing God's will you have chosen to not understand.
There it is. "I cannot prove the miracle occured." That's because you don't have evidence of it, new or old. No one is saying Jericho wasn't a place or Sycamore wasn't a tree.
No one argues that people back then didn't know what names people were called. If this dude has such a hard on for common names, he must also be a believer in Narnia. So that's not the argument. The argument is that there is no contemporaneous account that corroborates the miracle claims in the bible, and the bible itself is not even a contemporaneous miracle claim. No one says they can't get names right.
@TheSnarkyApologist I think I'll try to slice it into the woods...here we go again with the bible quotations; did it ever occur to you that simply because something is written in a book, doesn't automatically mean it's true? And what you write there at the end is pretty telling too; you assumed I could easily kick all this nonsense to the curb, because, I believe, somewhere inside you know it's all fantasy. Oh, and I love the part of the verse describing "invisible" qualities; that's great...
"James is not a Jewish name. It is a placeholder for Jacob. Jesus is Greek for Yeshua, or Joshua Why don't you talk about that? Also, Andrew and Phillip are Greek names.
Nice sermon, but the gospels weren’t written by eyewitnesses because the Jesus they write about was not a historical person. So, no one can witness something that didn’t happen.
@Luis Morales- Did you even watch the video right through? Do you have the intellect to actually understand the ramifications of the evidence within? Also not even secular scholars would deny the historical Jesus existed, so that puts you in the minority.
What a ridiculous line of argument. This guy is prime example of how Christianity causes the brains of believers to malfunction. You get people who seem intelligent, logical and lucid when dealing with almost any subject. But the minute that they start to talk about Jesus or God or the Bible they do a Jekyll and Hyde transformation. Reason, judgement and logic all go out of the window and they become simpletons. Switch the topic and they go back to their normal selves. It's bizarre.
Hiding in plain site of the greek language of the four Gospels is an intrinsic 1st century Jewish identity in parables, sayings, word plays, idioms, prose and polemic. It's there and it is UNDENIABLE and you don't find this in later gnostic writings. Such a vivid contrast is but one of many proofs that the four Gospels are authentic and that the gnostic gospels are later non Jewish Greco-Roman forgeries.
All the four gospel writers wrote these incidents from the life of Jesus Christ at the time when christians were being persecuted and church was growing majorly outside of Jerusalem itself. Their accounts were written from first hand accounts and witnesses. There was no reason for these to be 'made up' since the apostles of Jesus Christ were still able to correct them if there would have been any attempt to dramatize or falsify these actual incidents. These gospel writers also took great pains to collect these information, like Luke, who heard from eye witnesses and compiled the details. Biblical and skeptics both agree on the realibilty and canonicity of the Gospels. Gospel accounts are politically, geographically, culturally and historically accurate. No other manuscripts of ancient accounts have been transmitted and dated to the earliest copies except the Gospels. This is due to the fact that early Christians took their own life in their hands to copy and transmit the Gospels and spread the word. There was no central counsel or administration to plan and forge these gospel accounts. Basically there was no free time for early church to make up fables and fictional passages, since they were running from door to door with their lives. The gospel writers and the early church were just following their Master Jesus Christ in their way of life and collective responsibility to the world..Amen.
@Dave The Brahman Where do you get your info from I wonder? Make it up in your mind maybe? We have papyri from the early 2nd century (125ad or earlier), and the full Gospels by 180ad or so. We also have writings from the Church fathers, one possibly from the late first century. Several from the 2nd century, which quote thousands of passages from the Apostle's writings. We even have writings from opponents of Christianity from the early 2nd century, which also quote Gospel passages. Your assertions have been refuted.
@Dave The Brahman Sorry bud, but all I asserted is from Biblical Scholars of the highest rank. P52 now from the 3rd century? LMAO, so your source and where you've been studying is Wikipedia I see.
yes to Pete it probably is. Tyndale House Cambridge of which he is head (Warden) is a great place for serious Biblical research. Just in a days work really quite fitting..
Indeed I never knew of this type of scholarship for the public to learn from. I mean I knew of scholarship and lectures but this is and seems to be the best of the best when it comes to biblical scholarship. Thanks for your upload i'll definitely watch these videos for serious scholarship God bless you and yours.
thank you. I have been blessed to be a small part of this. Mark Lanier gave me permission to post these videos that The Lanier Theological Library in Houston Texas offers. all Lectures and Scholar Panel Discussions are free but you must sign up to attend on their website. Pete is a regular lecturer. This was his first. many world class lecturers have come. It is gaining a reputation of a place to come give a lecture to reach a wider audience. i have a link to the library site under description. but here it is again: www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/
Peter Williams is among the leading scholars at Tyndale, Cambridge University. His work, especially on NT studies, is currently among the best in our time. This lecture evaluates the authenticity of selected Bible segments. Watch and enjoy. Praise be the Lord. Amen
I first watched this lecture years ago, and I keep coming back to it to refresh all the evidence to my mind. I've linked many to this video as I believe it contains some very important and scientific evidence for the truth of the Gospels; Undeniable evidence. Dr. Williams also is a awesome lecturer, he keeps you attentive and adds some laughs. A big thank you to fleetwd1 for uploading this gem.
thank you, it is truly my pleasure. Peter has become a dear friend. this was the first video of the lecture series that went viral through the efforts of those like yourself. blessings to you for being a part of it's success. i like to revisit these as well. Greek teachers often say repetition is the mother of wisdom. It certainly helps my learning.
The Gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness account: The Apostle John was an eyewitness to the events he describes. ‘’The disciple whom Jesus loved’’ is described as being present at various events described in the book of John. At the very end of the book of John we are told: ‘Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper…’ (John 21:20). We are then told, regarding the disciple whom Jesus loved that ‘This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.’ (John 21:24).
For all those who commented about evidence (or lack thereof) please see Josh McDowell's books. There is much documented evidence out there. You have to be willing to look and dig a little with no presupositions. Just look at the evidence.
McDowell's book suffers from an extreme form of Confirmation Bias - a cognitive distortion that results in poor scholarship. Good scholarship presents all the material, both pro and con, and then makes a decision that best fits the totality. McDowell only presents material that conforms to an already decided conclusion - and many elements of his material are mutually contradictory. Not a recommended book for anyone but someone who is already convinced of McDowell's conclusion.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm If that is the case, then why is McDowell even a Christian? When he first examined the evidence for Christianity, his conclusion actually subverted his confirmation bias--any confirmation bias he might've had at the time would've been directed toward proving Christianity to be wrong!
Philip McNiel I don't think you understand what is meant by "confirmation bias". McDowell only quotes primary sources that agree with his final conclusion. This is a biased investigation with only one possible outcome. Academic and judicial inquiry requires that opposing views be given equal time and that the witnesses for these views not be prejudicial. For the most part McDowell completely ignores contradictory viewpoints and arguments but in the rare instances where he mentions them he quotes "strawman" versions from secondary and tertiary sources that are sympathetic to his conclusions. He had a non rational emotional investment in proving that his wife's beliefs were valid - and avoided any sources that might have challenged a conclusion of this nature. In summary, it was a mistrial based on biased presentation of evidence for only one side.
If I remember correctly, McDowell set out with the goal of disproving the Bible, and assumed it would be easy to blow it right away. He was not a Christian, and scoffed at Christians, at the time when some Christians challenged him to examine the evidence for himself. Seeking to scoff at them, he decided to tear their "evidence" apart. It was only when he looked into it--with confirmation bias pulling the other direction--that he began to accept what the Bible had to say.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm, I guess you are unaware that he started with the objective to take down the faith. Otherwise you wouldn’t ascribe to this kind of nonsense. He already did the homework. You are the one starting with a bias. Wake up! Jesus came for all who will call on His name.
The man who made Harvard Law school what it is today, Simon Greenleaf, argues that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the best attested to historic event ever.
Does Harvard Law School teach 6th grade math? 365-360 = 5 5 / 2 = 2.5 This math demonstrates that it is the Sun that dies and resurrects on the 3rd day. 365 days in a year. 360 degrees in the earth's orbit around the sun. The ancients measured the sun move 1 degree everyday, with the exception of the 2 solstices, Winter and Summer. Thus, 5 / 2 = 2.5 days the sun does not move at each solstice. Thus, the Sun dies in a "coffin" which is the constellation of Ophiuchus. The 13th secret sign of the zodiac, like Joseph of Aramathea being the 13th secret disciple. and then the sun resurrects on the 3rd day or 2.5 days. I think any 6th grader can prove that the resurrection of the Sun on the 3rd day is the best-attested event that happens every year during the winter solstice.
You must be one of the group that is planning to land on the sun at nighttime. Good luck. Maybe you should throw those garbage astrological books in the fire before you get thrown in the lake of fire.
VegasKJV The lake of fire is the Milky Way. You see the Serpens Cauda and the Serpens Caput make a circle around Ophiuchus, thus Ophiuchus is where you go for eternity or like Oroboros, for infinity. If you don't make it to heaven (Ophiuchus) then you are caste in to the lake of fire, which is the Milky Way. If you would like for me to explain a biblical story as an astrological allegory just ask. I aim to please.
Thanks for your opinion Ra Mabus. Would you please explain Proverbs 18:2 as an astrological allegory? Thanks! Proverbs 18:2 "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
And Greenleaf should have lost his position at Harvard for making what any 1st year law student could tell you is a demonstrably false statement. His argument basically was that the gospels would constitute solid evidence in a court of law and that as such they prove that Jesus both existed and that he was the Son of God.In addition he knows of no other event in ancient history that we better evidence for. He wasn't a historian and we know much more about ancient history now than we did in the early 1800's when he was writing - so we can perhaps excuse him being wrong in his claims about the attestation of the resurrection compared to other historic events. However his obviously false claims about the gospels acceptability as evidence from a legal standpoint are simply lies. They fail every single test of admissibility that we have.
Actually the names attached to those gospels pop up quite early. And if you are going to make up names why would you make up names like "Luke" or "Mark" who weren't apostles themselves. I would recommend reading Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Regardless, his argument doesn't even rely on the name attached to the book. "there are still discrepancies and omissions amongst the three synoptics." They are written from different perspectives. If the same, you would think they were fake
It's rather stunning this apologist is arguing the validity of gospels based on names, when all four gospel authors are anonymous, they never identify themselves or the date they're writing, and we know virtually nothing about the gospel authors. The names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were assigned by the church later, yes? And while Mark, Matthew and Luke copy from each other, there are still discrepancies and omissions amongst the three synoptics. Why is divinely-inspired text so vague?
Spiderman fallacy. Just because many of the things written in Spiderman comics are true (the existence of New York and other factual claims) doesnt mean there was an actual person who had superpowers. And there are less than a half dozen extrabilical references to Jesus and none of them are contemporary.
Not true. Many people have come to faith through Apologetics. Lee Strobel and C.S Lewis are famous examples. William Lane Craig told the story of how a polish Physicist came back to faith just by hearing the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
If anyone claims that the gospels were written by people so foreign to the land and people concerned, I stand corrected. It would not be a strawman, but selecting the weakest counter-argument, which is valid. What stays very very weak is the argument that, since the authors got probable names and specific places right, it follows that any supernatural claims made about such names and places must also be credible. "I saw Madonna levitate over Boston on July 4th, Independence Day". Credible?
Thank you for blowing apart anti Christian ‘scholars’. As historical and archeological data revealed by modern technology grow and the cosmic fine tuning data point to supernatural creation I am amazed any non believers remain.
I realized that this video was posted 9 years ago. Now that we know the authenticity of the Gospel, the word of God. But I am just wondering what one may conclude if Quran is subjected to this kind of test noting that the book mentions Jesus 24x, Mahomet 4x, and Mecca is none? Also by the fact that Quran was not codified until 1924.
@jb san - There are plenty of others online who deal with the reliability or truthfulness of the quran. Check out David Wood or the Apostate prophet for instance. From what I've learnt, the quran cannot withstand any scrutiny whatsoever. We Christians can scrutinize our Bible and Jesus actually told us to, and to use reason, whereas in the Islamic cult it warrants death if a muslim dares to scrutinize the quran or mohamet.
If you believe what you're claiming about the gospels being based on eyewitness accounts, answer these questions: 1. Which eyewitness could have recorded the conversation between Jesus and Satan in the wilderness? 2. Which eyewitness could have recorded the prayers of Jesus in Gethsemane while his disciples were asleep? 3. Which eyewitness could have recorded the trial of Jesus in Pilate's palace and given us such conflicting accounts of it? 4. Why do Matthew and Luke base their gospels on Mark, who was NOT an eyewitness?
They may not have ALL been completely asleep the whole time. He doesn't name all 12 when complaining about them being asleep. Also he could have told them about it after the resurrection (he was with them off and on for 40 days) Mark was a companion of Peter and traveled with him so he had access to an eyewitness. Luke writes like a professional historian or biographer of that time and was a companion of Paul. Paul knew and met w disciples several times and Luke was likely with him and probably visited w the apostles on his own as well and it is likely he interviewed Mary herself. He has proven to be a very accurate historian. On top of that the Risen Jesus promised them the help of the Holy spirit (Comforter) in guiding them to truth and bringing everything to their remembrance, so no reason he could not have revealed those things to them after he was risen. Remember the question must assume He is who the scriptures SAY he is and that he DID rise from the dead -IF that is TRUE then there is NO problem. If not your question doesn't matter anyway. There is enough evidence (hope u watched the whole video) that they were likely written by eyewitnesses. I don't go by this video alone. This is just one (very interesting) line of evidence. There are many other's and put together make a very strong case. but there isn't space here for all of it would take lots of books (which i have read). I highly recommend "Cold Case Christianity by J Warner Wallace" its a great place to start and is also a unique angle on the subject. I'm not going to continue the conversation cuz i hate typing and am terrible at it. :) so it takes and excessive amount of time for me to type something this long. Just start with that book.
To say that Jesus "could have probably told them" and then claim that the writers are eyewitnesses entirely runs counter to the very definition of an eyewitness account. If the writers themselves did not see for themselves and relied on accounts of others who claimed that they did, then the writings themselves are no longer eyewitness accounts but hearsay testimonies.
+Equine dreams I am just reading your comment from three months ago. Sorry for the delay. I don't always get email notifications. You did not answer my questions. Instead you made dubious and unsubstantiated claims about the reliability of Paul, who had nothing at all to do with any of my four questions. The only attempt you made was in response to my question #2: Which eyewitness recorded the prayers of Jesus? You said "They may not have ALL been completely asleep the whole time." YES. According to Jesus, they were. Read the gospels.
@LifeIsSoAwesome I do not disagree. However, arguments showing the strength of the Christian position can be used to impact the heart. That is how my girlfriend came to Christ from Atheism--logical arguments, like the ones used by Dr. Williams, given by people obeying 1 Peter 3:15, which commands us to have evidence for our hope. I have told Dr. Williams' argument to a many agnostic and Atheistic friends, who have been intrigued by it.
This is an outstanding use of logic and data that needs to be heard everywhere. Just goes to show that if you don't believe in Jesus, it's not because there is no evidence. It's that no amount of evidence will convince you. P.S. - Does anyone else think Dr. Williams looks like the English Jim Carrey?
I love how ironic it is that he made the argument toward the start that people have poor ideas of what names are common in places they are not familiar with, and in some cases, even places that they are familiar with, only to then make a comment about how generic it would be to describe an Australian named Bruce. As an Australian, let me tell you that such an example was actually better evidence of the earlier argument, given that I've never met a single Bruce in my life. 🤣
yes Down Under can be a vast area. I am sure Peter was talking in jest. you know how the English feel toward their former prison mates. I would not let that effect the rest of what Pete has to say. Jewish names were quite different in Alexander Egypt or in Assyria than in the area of the NT writers. and they had no surnames to distinguish and they seemed to only use the added terms when necessary for clarity Like Judas (not Iscariot) John 14:22 ESV KJV GNT NLT AMP NASB CJB NIV adds Judas after not.
There is a kiwi band called Rubicon that has a song called Bruce, which basically just the lyric: "Who would call a kid Bruce anyway? The poor kid would have to hang his head in shame." over and over again. :)
In fact, although one or a few pieces of circumstantial evidence may just be due to chance, many pieces of circumstantial evidence all saying the same increase the probability that what they support is true. Many pieces of circumstantial evidence were presented in this video. I don't know the exact probability that together they point to the truth of the gospels, but it will be a high probability.
Yes Peter admits the same. This Lecture presents evidence from a algorithm created in the early 2000's that analyzes the accuracy of documents from places based upon personal names, names of places, names of plant life, types of agriculture, etc. etc. I thought it was interesting after doing the 4 gospels and Acts they took other documents called gospels and did similar tests with quite different results. But Peter admits this does not prove beyond a shadow of doubt. The Bible itself never seems to be interested in doing that.
Very good video. While I understand that he did give a disclaimer for using the term "Palestine" and "Palestinian" as not being a political statement, it's ridiculous to use this to identify Judea and northern Israel of the 1st century. The name "Palestina" was a cruel moniker given to the land by the Romans as a play on the word "Philistine" LONG AFTER the time in question (AFTER 135 A.D.)
Steve W, wasn’t it closer to 70AD? I have been having trouble finding the information that was up on the internet, years ago. I had heard that after the fire, the Romans had what was left buried under sand using thousands of slaves. It is refreshing to see someone else who has read the same as I had. The Palestine/ Philistine naming. Bless you
not sure what you mean by these artifacts. Peter used a algorithm that was created in the early 2000s and then fed into it the texts of the 4 Gospels and the book of Acts. then they did the same for the other gospels that did not make it into the biblical canon. the algorithm analyzed the content to determine how familiar the writers would be with the area being described. it is not foolproof evidence but the contrast between the Gospels and Acts to other gospels written later was a stark contrast. So the new evidence is an algorithm's analysis. I do not know where the algorithm is located but it is likely this project was done at Tyndale House Research Library in Cambridge in the UK. Peter is Warden there. So perhaps they could answer you question. just google Tyndale House Cambridge,
I love the Karate analogy -- it really captures the spirit of the Christian tradition. To extend the anagolgy a bit, how can we best live our tradition in this new, smaller, MMA world? 🤗
@@fleetwd1 I've got a few thoughts. We should try really hard to love each other and take all the Christian traditions seriously. After all, how can we possibly expect anyone to take the faith seriously when they see how much we hate each other? 😥 There's more we can do beyond that, but that seems like the obvious place to start. How can we balance the proper goal of having good doctrine, while treating with dignity anyone who claims Jesus as lord and believes in their heart that God raised him from the dead? To return to the analogy, that would be like adding BJJ sparring to our toolkit -- entangled combat, no hitting. And pushing people away means you aren't doing it right. And we should shut up and just worship together -- call it a "hug break"?
Robert Eisenman, a scholar of ancient Palestine and the Dead Sea Scrolls, quite convincingly shows that Jews of this time were mining Isaiah for passages to interpret as prophecy for events of the day. Jews all over the Empire had access to these old Testament and would have gotten details about Palestine from there. He also shows how Luke could have reworked many of Josephus' stories about the siege of Jerusalem.
"The unanimity of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained...other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning..It is inconcievable...the Gospels could circulate anonymously for..sixty years.. then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors..Hengel concludes that the..gospels were never even formally anonymous." An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd Ed). DA Carson and Douglas Moo. Zondervan:2005.
Just like the parable of Lazarus: "If you do not listen to Moses and the prophets then neither will you believe even if someone were to rise from the dead." God wants to be found. But you have to seek Him out. You can neither prove or disprove Him explicitly. You can only axiomatically accept Him based on the overwhelming depth of evidence thrown at you.
His undesigned coincidence section is interesting. This is much more likely to work if the gospels are following historical reportage rather than employing Greco-Roman literary devices .
I may not fully understand your comment but this is not based upon Greco-Roman literary devices. it is based upon an algorithm created in the early 2000s. it evaluates literature as to whether it is a genuine eyewitness account. Tyndale House decided to use this algorithm to evaluate New Testament Gospels and Acts and compare them with noncanonical gospels. this is their research evaluation.. .
@@fleetwd1 : You did not understand my comment. 'Undesigned coincidences' work if the gospels are simple historical reporting. They are much less likely to work if the gospel writers are employing so called Greco-Roman literary devices - an argument that is becoming ever more popular within some Evengelical circles.
Penny, if you'll notice, he's not at all using the names of the gospel authors to prove anything, but rather the names the gospels record of people living in Israel in the first century. He is not testing to support traditional authorship by Matt. Mark Luke John, but rather testing to see if the names the gospel writers record accurately represent what one would expect of an eyewitness recording events in Israel in the first century. And they do.
i don't see why could only reinforce believers rather than convince unbelievers. if the argument is solid, there shouldn't be a division between non-believers and believers. Shouldn't this appeal to irregardless groups? I wouldn't recommend watching this at all... Its pointless to say the least. faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God? If the Hindus says the same thing what have you got to tell them? believe not thru argument? fine i worship the cow and it goes moo...
@aramar616 He started off by quoting C.S. Lewis: Jesus was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. He then went on to say that the other "L" that has been added more recently is Legend. The point of this new evidence is that "Legend" is a harder position to take because of the strong evidence that the accounts are from eyewitnesses. And back to C.S. Lewis, because of what Jesus said, you can't call him a prophet or teacher when his claim was that he was God.
More reciting other people. No eyewitnesses. The gospels were written up to 60 years after the event and the people they cite are years after the unknown Jesus's death. One was even a forgery because there was no evidence at all. Still waiting for this guy to start naming this NEW information.
23:14, "People can get really interested in broken texts; they can make up the bits in between." This is what is technically called "conjectural emendation". The probability that the guess is accurate largely depends on whatever textual evidence is extant.
you should read Bart Ehrman. I'm not saying he's right about everything, but people like you have to look at what Christian scholars are saying about the Bible.
There is NO evidence. None. No original writings, no eyewitness testimony (no, the four gospels were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John the apostles of Jesus. The names were added later.), no photographs and no physical body to examine.
Interesting talk when I imagine the gospels I imagine men (possibly principally) and women who'd known Jesus and been principally scared and then empowered by some event sitting around talking about Jesus like "hey Phillip do you remember when Jesus did that" yeah I remember Andrew you weren't there but Simon I remember that because the thong on your sandal broke and it fell off you nearly tripped over your own feet you laughed at yourself and even Jesus cracked a little smile he put a reassuring hand on your shoulder and taught us a little." Bathomelew smiling said "Yes I missed the lesson as I went to find a cobbler" Everyone laughs and they all start recounting what they remember of Jesus lesson. Eventually they tell others the most important bits of the story. Jesus said or Jesus did, and it happened here and these people were present as people of learning become believers scraps get written down (long lost) then someone sits down and writes down the different accounts most probably whilst people who knew or knew of Jesus were still alive.
So, telephone game works that way because of whispering & because you must say it only once. How about a school or a town, talking loudly & repeating it many times?
As a follower of Jesus who has left traditional Evangelical Christianity, I find this lecture very refreshing and am grateful to Dr Williams for sharing it with us. He did not come across as trying to force anyone to see it his way and he did with pertinent statistics and profiling make the 4 biblical Gospels plausible. I have stepped away from being a religious Bible thumper realizing I can not change or fix anyone but myself and that takes letting go and letting God. And a Jewish Rabbi said nearly 2000 years ago one should work on getting the plank out of his own eye and since I've been whittling away at the plank in my eye, the speck that loomed so large in Dr Williams' eye has suddenly disappeared. Blessings on your work and to you Dr Williams.
Tell the story of your journey to others. Please share about your personal reflection and truths. Such stories are the most encouraging to hear and to understand. Most Christians fail to acknowledge personal failings (holier than thou), and its a turn off to unbelievers who feel inadequate or aren't interested also it kind of eliminates the need for ongoing salvation but this is an honest testimony of personal struggle and I'm as someone spiritually bumbling around right now I'm encouraged to hear it. Thank you!
Also, though the description says that Dr. Williams will focus on the idea of the gospels copying one another (verbatim section, Q doc, etc...), this is not brought up at all except as a minor point (in the questions, I think), and he doesn't discuss it, but merely outlines the common theory and says that he doesn't really accept it. As that seems like a very significant point, I was disappointed. As an earlier commenter mentioned, the later gospels could be more akin to fan-fiction.
@rguyshipe If anything, he's not dismissing the "Legend" interpretation, but rather refining it; suggesting that perhaps a real person or some real events existed to base the events of the gospel on, rather than the entire thing being a fabrication.
My point is that he is clearly debating agains the (strawman) claim that the gospel writers were non-jew foreigners that should have inventend names and places. I am not aware of anyone who says that, including Ehrman or even Mythicist Richard Carrier. Carrier actually calls one of the gospels a "literary masterpiece", clearly created by a writer knowledgeable of jew culture, symbolism, etc. How getting typical names and places right "proves" miracles happened is beyond me, though.
The "correct names" point seems to be battling a strawman. Does anybody actually claim that the gospels were written by foreigners with no knowledge of the land, at the time? On the contrary, the gospels themselves, if seen as mythical literature, seem keen on presenting Jesus as a "New and Improved" Moses, full of nods to and upgrades of old testament events. They were most probably greek speaking jews that came from palestine, or were born from palestinian parents. Of course the knew names.
Teachers and Preachers -- Dr. Peter Williams analysis of personal names in the New Testament era, how Jesus spoke of himself, and how the Gospel correctly includes descriptions of cities and small towns is very helpful to those who teach or preach about Christ. The knowledge and passion of the speaker for the subject is vitally important, particularly in how it is expressed in his or her knowledge of details. Relating details brings a talk to life. Billions of people have found the Gospel stories credible, not because the events of long ago can be 'proved,' but because the stories are related with such vivid eyewitness credibility. If you want to follow up on how the eyewitness testimony of Peter is present in the Gospels, I suggest watching the videos of Dr. Richard Bauckham, author of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Another route may be my historical novel, Mark's Passion, which tells the story of Mark the Evangelist and the challenging times in which he put the Gospel in writing. The more of these details that you can get your arms around, the better your teaching and preaching will become.Gene Vanderzanden, author of Mark's Passion
I'm sure Dr. Williams gets a great deal of his information in this wonderful lecture from Dr. Richard Bauckham. I've read Bauckham quite a lot and really enjoy him. I'm curious, however where he get's his information on the statistical analysis of place names and names of people. I find that fascinating and would like to read his source material.
Pete used an algorithm created in the early 21st century that analyzed written work determining the likelihood of it being from an eyewitness account. Tyndale House Cambridge decided to enter the Gospels and the Book of Acts to see how they measured up using this algorithm. Later they decided to also feed into it the other gospels not found in the New Testament as a means of comparison. The Lecture shows the results of this research project. You are right about Williams and Bauckham they are colleges. I have a Lecture of Richard Bauckham on the Divine and Human Community in the Gospel of John as well. if interested go here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5vKCVDJiyDE.html
@@fleetwd1 That is amazing and extremely interesting. Is this project documented in a book or anything that I could study? I also saved the other lecture you mentioned to watch later. Thank you so much for this channel, it's extremely important information!
@@Hall102 Peter is head of Tyndale House a research library in Cambridge England. (They are not the publishing Tyndale House of the US.) I do not know for sure if Peter has a book on this subject, but you could contact him through their website here: tyndalehouse.com/ you are welcome. it is my privilege to be able to share the content made available to me.
I would suggest from your comment alone, you don't have the brain capacity to actually understand the point being made and how it shows how the gospels are legit.
Interesting info, thanks. None of it proves mythicism, but definitely makes the conclusion "they knew something about Palestine, therefore they had to be eyewitnesses" completely invalid.
