1

The testimony of an expert witness depends on the competency of the witness, whereas, the testimony of an ordinary witness is validated by corroborating testimony.

We are free to challenge an expert to ensure his testimony does not wander outside the scope of his expertise. The testimony of an ordinary witnesses should be corroborated by other voices.

The witnesses to the gold plates of the Book of Mormon are presented as expert witnesses where we are supposed to trust them without outside corroboration.

What is the nature of the witness of the Apostles in the gospels? How does the answer affect our presumptions in hermeneutics?

7
  • 3
    I think you are trying to apply modern legal concepts to books written 2000 years ago. Nov 1, 2011 at 19:55
  • Actually I am just asking if the apostles expected us to believe them simply because they said so, or do they expect us to corroborate their testimony somehow. If the former, then how can we challenge their 'mistakes'. If the latter, then how much of the gospel can be corroborated and by what? I think the gospels differ from the letters in how they treat their testimony.
    – Bob Jones
    Nov 2, 2011 at 5:05
  • 2
    That's nothing to do with the concept of an 'expert witness'. Expert witnesses are those with particular expertise. The difference is that an expert witness can testify about their opinion - another witness can only testify to facts. Nov 2, 2011 at 13:28
  • 4
    There were multiple apostles, so their individual testimony is corroborated by the other voices, right? Nov 3, 2011 at 22:25
  • The gospels are validated by each other concerning details of Jesus's life but more importantly, they are witnesses that the prophesies of the OT came true. Each detail in the NT validates prophesies of the OT (though many of the prophecies are hidden in riddle, called shadows in Hebrews.) In the letters they are exercising their authority in the church, which is a different function. So I am thinking that the gospels are common, and the letters are expert. In the letters we are expected to believe them because of their appointed expertise. But the gospels can be validated by Bereans.
    – Bob Jones
    Nov 5, 2011 at 15:27

3 Answers 3

3

The simple answer is "no", none of the disciples were expert witnesses, certainly not in the modern sense, and more importantly, not in the sense of their time, whether according to the Pharisees or the Sadducees, both of who demanded a high standard of education in Jewish tradition and adherence to that tradition to be considered as witnesses at all for anything other than mundane issues.

There is no evidence to think that the disciples were particularly educated men in the sense that would be required to be considered valid witnesses then, and some evidence think the contrary. They appear to have chosen themselves or been chosen by Jesus, not on the basis of education, but on the basis of their conviction, their commitment and their willingness to hear a new idea that others burdened by doctrinal education could not hear. They might also have been chosen on the basis future leadership potential although the text itself does not indicate whether this is so.

When the disciples received the mission of being apostles following the resurrection, it doesn't appear from the text that not being considered expert witnesses in the sense of their time hindered them in any way. No one then seemed to be particularly worried by that fact. I don't think that we need to be either, as that is apparently not the message that the text intends to give us.

3

Were the apostles “expert” witnesses?

If I understand the thrust of the question correctly, you are asking how the apostles expected their testimony in the gospels to be received - but in the process you appear (perhaps unintentionally) to be conflating the original audience and modern readers into a single group.

I would prefer to delineate those who read the gospels into at least two, and probably several more groups, and indeed the different gospels may even have been written with different audiences in mind. Luke at least seems to be primarily addressing a converted reader:

1:1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. ESV

From the perspective of 'Theophilus', it seems likely that Luke was regarded as an 'expert' - and he may well have taken on trust things he wrote whereas a man encountering Luke's gospel today for the first time might

  1. have preconceived animosity towards religion
  2. have a sensible policy of not believing things just because someone wrote them
  3. have already put their trust in some other person or faith than the one Luke holds

, to name but a few possibilities.

Given that:

19:15“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. ESV

It seems reasonable not to expect someone who is not already a believer to accept the testimony of Luke alone - and indeed I find it very helpful that the we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses from the varied Bible texts.

The remaining question then becomes whether Luke (or indeed God) intended his gospel to be a tool for convincing/persuading those who do not believe that it is a true account of the important facts about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as for building up 'Theophilus' (and perhaps other believers).

This goes to the heart of how a man is converted - is it the moment before he hears the gospel, so he can receive it, or the moment after, as he chooses to respond. In either event, at least for John, that intent is explicit:

20:31but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. ESV

4
  • "... how the apostles expected their testimony in the gospels to be received" The message of Christ and the apostles was not a new message. All they said Jesus did was said to validate that the law and prophets were fulfilled. When we say Matt said so, we should be asking "In what way were prophecies fulfilled in what Matt said." Luke recorded things that demonstrated that Jesus fulfilled scripture as the means to persuade us, not as a testimony of a new message and messenger. We believe that Jesus is the C, SOG because he fulfilled scripture, not because Luke said he was.
    – Bob Jones
    May 5, 2012 at 3:39
  • we don't believe Luke because he was an apostle, but because his testimony is corroborated by scriptures. We have their testimony in the gospels and can validate it the same way the Bereans did, by checking the Old Testament. When we "buy their story" because they are apostles, we treat them as expert witnesses.
    – Bob Jones
    May 5, 2012 at 3:42
  • but speaking as a gentile convert, what reason do I have to trust the Old Testament first? The agreement certainly lends itself to the overall picture or integrity of all the witnesses but I for one trusted the apostles first :-) May 5, 2012 at 7:18
  • 1
    So to you the apostle is an expert witness, which is an anachronism according to others here. If the early Jewish Christians did not accept them as experts when they spoke of the Jewish Messiah, what warrant do gentiles have? I suspect, if the truth be known, in your case, a sheep recognized the voice of his shepherd through the NT authors, and with time learned to understand his words. So the initial trust was really in the shepherd, which trust was imputed to the authors.
    – Bob Jones
    May 8, 2012 at 3:46
1

The witness of the resurrection is what is important here.

In the Gary Habermas video, "Undeniable Historical Evidence for the Existence of Jesus", Bart Ehrman, an Atheist, provides fifteen independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus within one hundred years; and if he died, he had to have lived.

The importance of the Apostles' witness is not that they were expert witnesses, but that they were sent forth by Jesus Christ as his witnesses to his life, ministry, death, (and most importantly), to his resurrection.

Some people are witnesses of the Holocaust because they were there. An expert witness may be an expert in the documentary evidence, left behind by the prison guards. Another expert witness may be an expert in the chimney soot of cremated bodies, who examined the soot in the chimneys.

Those who were there, and witnessed the holocaust firsthand, are not to be diminished just because they are not expert witnesses. If they don't have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and have not examined the chemical traces of the gas chambers, they won't be on the list of expert witnesses. Their testimony of what they saw, and experienced, may actually supersede the expert witnesses in a trial. They can tell you that the holocaust happened because they were there. The expert witness can tell you that what they examined is consistent with the testimony of the first-hand witnesses.

The voice of God, speaking through the Book of Mormon prophet in 2 Nephi, doesn't say the disbelieving Gentiles, (who say, we have no need of another Bible), should believe the book because the three witnesses or the eight witnesses would be expert witnesses. He didn't even say the Gentiles had to believe, as you say, just because they said it was so.

The Voice of God, printed in 1830, some 100 years before the Holocaust, questions, what thanks to the Jews, do the Gentiles give for their Bible? God is saying if the Gentiles believe the Bible they will believe the Book of Mormon, yet they that say that sola scriptura was a tenant of God and that they have no need of any other witnesses of Christ's resurrection, will suffer the same consequences as those who disbelieve the Bible.

If you lived to hear the voice of Paul, some five hundred additional witnesses were then living, you could speak with those who became physical eyewitnesses, because they put their hands in the fleshy wounds and saw with their eyes that this man had the wounds of death, and yet he was fully physically alive, even eating broiled fish and honeycomb before them.

If the witness of five hundred Jews doesn't impress you, there were some 2,500, who were a remnant of the tribe of Joseph, and some of his other sheep, living among the natives of this land, who were not experts with crucifixion, but familiar with executions by other means. They too, put their hands in the wound of his side, and hands and feet.

Tom Holland, a humanist, describes why the crucifixion of Christ was a revolutionary change to the Christian West, from the brutality of the world before. He claims that the crucifixion changes you, whether you are a humanist, atheist, secularist, or Christian. Christianity is the water in which we swim. Therefore, we have the right to choose our philosophy, giving dignity to the victim, and the lowest of the low.

Joshua Gehly compares the two most important miracles of the last two thousand years: "The cross of Christ, and the Golden Plates, Using an Established Historical Method to Authenticate Ancient Artifacts".

The world itself, cannot contain all the books that could be written of the tokens, or infallible proofs of Christ's resurrection, Sola Scriptura notwithstanding.

Your own most sacred experience will be your own token or infallible proof of the resurrection of Christ. If and when you, like Thomas and Mary Magdalene, witness the wounds of His hands, feet, and side, you will be a witness. You don't need to be considered an expert witness to be a perfectly satisfactory witness.

2
  • @ Ken Madsen - To accurately Answer a question, there must be a definition of terms that both parties agree on so that meaningful communication exists. It seems from your answer here that the meaning of "Expert Witness" used by the questioner is different from yours. The biblical meaning of 'Witness" is simply "someone who has experienced an event by seeing and hearing. (2 Peter1:16 "eyewitnesses) The reference is not to "professionals" expert in a particular field. That is to introduce needless topic. "Expert here simply means "valid or reliable."....
    – ray grant
    Nov 30, 2023 at 23:07
  • ...further, the Question here deals with the Apostles in the Bible (traditional first century Greek). To introduce a writing(s) from the nineteenth century is off topic here. They are irrelevant to this question. Beyond the scope of interest here. Keep studying the Bible; it is Truth and Light!
    – ray grant
    Nov 30, 2023 at 23:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.