Case for Christ — My response part 2

Hello:

In my last post I set forth the eyewitness memory problems Dr. Loftus researched.  Let me be upfront about this and say I am not a psychologist.  I am an attorney and familiar with her work.  Let me also say no one should doubt that honest people can be wrong.  With that said, eyewitness testimony in both antiquity and the modern world are given the utmost credence.  The issue with eyewitnesses to these things is whether the testimony is reliable.   The US Supreme court has repeatedly upheld this type of data and in 1977 (Manson vs. Brathwaite, ET:185-186) stated that “reliability is the linchpin” in terms of admissibility of such evidence.

There are two types of eyewitnesses.  Those who are bystanders and those who actually participate in the event.  Dr. Loftus’ research was done on those who are bystanders.  There are also two main types of events.  Those of short duration and those of longer duration.  Dr. Loftus’ research was on those of short duration and unrepeated events.   In these type of events there are two major factors.  The first of these is the amount of time elapsing between the event and when the memory is recalled.   Dr. Loftus discovered the shorter the interval the better the memory.  (ET at 86).   The other factor is post event information (PEI).  This can be talking to other people, being interviewed by some one and how they phrase their questions.  Let me give you an example from my own life.  About 8 years ago, I was an eyewitness to an auto accident.  It was in Dayton Ohio on a Sunday afternoon when I was on my way home from church.  I was driving north on a street one block to the west of Main street.  I can not remember the name of the street I was on with 100% clarity though I believe it to be St. Clair Ave.  I was stopped at a red light and there was a car in front of me.  The intersection was at the corner of First Street and the street I was traveling north on.  As I was approaching the intersection and slowing down because the light was red, the light changed and the car in front of me started through the intersection when a car travelling east on First collided wit€h it on the drivers side.  As I turned right onto First street, the driver of the car that was struck  flagged me down and asked me to write a statement.   I had a pen and paper in my car because I am an attorney and my brief case was in the car.  I did not talk to anyone before I wrote the statement.  That should lead you to ask two questions.  The first of these is how did I know what I saw and the second is how do I still recall these details 8 years later?  Let me answer the first.  I had lived in Dayton for about 10 years at the time and my law offices were on First street at the 111 building.  First street is a one way street and you can not turn onto First from Main.  Main runs north and south through Dayton.  I lived north of the office and West is to the left of north.  The first recall of this memory was at the scene just minutes after the accident and I told the story without any PEI.  I also  repeated the story several times that same day.

As to the second question, having told the story several times I remember it clearly.  I also use this story as an example of how witnesses can see the same thing from different perspectives and not be wrong about what they saw.  As example is I was not the only eyewitness to this accident.  There was at least one person standing at the cross walk at the intersection who was facing south.  From my vantage point the car that hit the other car came from my left.  To the person standing at the cross walk, the car would have come from his or her right.

 While this demonstrates that eyewitness testimony can be reliable, it does not answer the question about anything other than short traumatic events.  In the case of the Gospels, Jesus’ disciples were with him for a period of three and a half years and while many things happened in that time, the disciples had an opportunity to hear him many times, watch him do miracles many times, and to spend lots of time with Him.  Therefore, most of the events they watched and participated in were not short-term traumatic events.  Hence, I do not see much relevance in Ms. Loftus’ work as applied to the Gospels. 

With that in mind, I think the testimony from the writers of the Gospels is reliable.

Advertisement