This is an excellent answer from William Lane Craig on the subject. In addition to the other sources he cites (which is a fascinating insight), it's an important point to remember that the Gospels are each separate sources, not one. We forget that they were written separately, circulated separately until being bound together a couple of centuries later. They are each independent sources supporting one another.
1. What sources outside of the canon are there that support Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in bodily form, and ascension into heaven?
Actually, there are lots of extra-canonical sources that support Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, sources which I suspect you’ve never thought of. You’re thinking of later extra-canonical sources like Josephus and Tacitus. But the really interesting extra-canonical sources are the earlier ones, that is to say, the sources used by the New Testament writers themselves. Now before you cry foul, you need to reflect that these sources are not themselves in the canon but go back even closer to the events than the canonical books. These are, therefore, the center of historical Jesus study today, not the later extra-canonical sources. Honestly, if you’re focused on what later extra-canonical sources there are for Jesus, you’re really missing the boat.
What are some of these sources? The Passion story used by Mark, the formula cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5, Matthew’s special source called M, Luke’s special source called L, and so forth. Some of these are incredibly early sources (which helps to answer your second question). The pre-Markan passion story probably dates from the 30s and is based on eyewitness testimony, and the pre-Pauline formula in I Cor. 15.3-5 has been dated within a couple of years or even months of Jesus’ death. I think you can see why these are the really interesting sources, not some later report by Josephus.
Now these sources provide abundant, independent testimony to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Later references to Jesus by the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Syrian writer Mara bar Serapion, rabbinical writings, and extra-biblical Christian authors confirm what the New Testament documents tell us about Jesus but don’t really give us anything new. You can find such sources cited and discussed in R. T. France’s very fine book The Evidence for Jesus (1986) or in Robert Van Voorst’s definitive Jesus outside the New Testament (2000). What is key for the historian, however, will be, not these later sources, but the New Testament documents themselves and their sources.
Which leads to my question to you: why are you interested in extra-canonical sources rather than the primary source documents themselves? Doesn’t your very question betray the prejudice that the New Testament documents are historically unreliable? But if there are sources outside the New Testament that speak of Jesus, ah, that’s real evidence!
You need to keep in mind that originally there wasn’t any such book called “The New Testament.” There were just these separate documents handed down from the first century, things like the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, Greece, and so on. It wasn’t until a couple centuries later that the church officially collected all these documents under one cover, which came to be known as the New Testament. The church only included the earliest sources which were closest to Jesus and the original disciples and left out the later, secondary accounts like the forged apocryphal gospels, which everyone knew were fakes. So from the very nature of the case, the best historical sources were included in the New Testament. People who insist on evidence taken only from writings outside the New Testament don’t understand what they’re asking for. They’re demanding that we ignore the earliest, primary sources about Jesus in favor of sources which are later, secondary, and less reliable, which is just nuts as historical methodology.
Independent? What establishes that they are independent?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 02, 2011 at 07:20 AM
Why do you ask, RonH?
Do you have some reason to think Craig is just asking this up, or do you really want to look at evidence and deal with arguments?
Posted by: Daron | February 02, 2011 at 11:16 AM
In case you want to consider Craig's points, here's the first link that came up when I Googled "Will Craig Gospels Independent":
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7047
Posted by: Daron | February 02, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Ron, you must have skimmed the post. It says why they are independant.
"You need to keep in mind that originally there wasn’t any such book called “The New Testament.” There were just these separate documents handed down from the first century, things like the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, Greece, and so on. It wasn’t until a couple centuries later that the church officially collected all these documents under one cover, which came to be known as the New Testament."
But more importantly, skeptics like Ron will never accept a document they cannot read (such as the source material Mark or the others used, "Q" for example is not extant). They have a hard enough time accepting the Gospel accounts we have were written early.
Posted by: john | February 03, 2011 at 03:53 AM
John drops the other shoe.
Posted by: Daron | February 03, 2011 at 04:00 AM
Just to add another point about not wanting to accept the Canonical books as accurate because they were written by "true believers"/Christians, Jim Wallace at Please Convince Me makes an excellent point when he points out that the writers converted to Christianity and then wrote about the experiences that caused that conversion. Dismissing them as unreliable because they believed what they experienced would be like dismissing the testimony of an assault victim because they were "personally involved" and actually believed what they experienced to be true.
Posted by: robert | February 03, 2011 at 11:31 AM
"They are each independent sources supporting one another."
haha, this is so wrong that we are forced to conclude that the author is lying. Look in to the synoptic problem.
Posted by: Boz | February 03, 2011 at 09:38 PM
This is only a problem for what the theologian, Bryan Cross, calls 'Ecclesial Deism'.
http://tinyurl.com/pq65xw
"...So when the Mormons claimed that a great apostasy had overcome the Church by the time of the death of the last Apostle, I had no ground to stand on by which to refute that claim. The Mormons believed that the true gospel was recovered in the early nineteenth century by Joseph Smith. I believed, as a Reformed Protestant, that the true gospel was recovered in the early sixteenth century by Martin Luther. But we both agreed (to my frustration) that the early Church fathers and the councils were suspect and not authoritative in their own right. Over the course of our meetings with the Mormon missionaries that summer I realized that, with respect to our treatment of the early Church fathers and ecumenical councils, there was no principled difference between myself and the two young Mormon missionaries sitting in my living room....
How does [Albert] Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in "traditional Christian orthodoxy"] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology...."
Posted by: Paul Rodden | February 04, 2011 at 01:14 AM
Boz and Major,
Even if the synoptic gospels aren't independent, we have the gospel of John as well. That's at least two independent sources. Also, what reason do you have to think that the synoptics are not independent? Her reasons that they are seem to be that they were written by different authors and circulated separately. Can you refute these?
Posted by: Austin | February 04, 2011 at 06:59 AM
I think there is a misunderstanding going on here regarding the claim of independence for the synoptics. William Lane Craig addresses this during one of his debates, noting that each of the synoptics has material that the others don't have, and that material is independent. Obviously, the synoptics are not independent of each other, but each contains independent material.
So, we have Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke, but Matthew and Luke each have other sources as well. Perhaps there was a Q document which served as a source for all three. Then there's John.
I'll see if I can find a link to Craig's debate. Sorry I can't provide it at this time.
Posted by: Bruce Byrne | February 04, 2011 at 09:58 AM
Hi Bruce,
He actually covers this in the link in the OP.
Posted by: Daron | February 04, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Posted by: Daron | February 04, 2011 at 12:05 PM
I would appreciate it if those who have a different take on things would explain what, exactly, that take is and why they find it compelling, rather than just dropping drive-by accusations of lying.
Posted by: Mike Westfall | February 05, 2011 at 09:55 AM
I think Bruce Byrne's comment clarifies the original post, but without that comment, in light of the Q issue, the original post is misleading at best. Please be a little more careful next time.
Posted by: Anon | February 06, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Sorry for the gap. I had no intention of doing a drive-by.
One level of independence would be: you can verify that your witnesses have not communicated with each other between the time of the event (whatever it is) and the time they testify.
A lower level of independence would be: the witnesses can be interviewed and they tell you they have not communicated. Or, maybe you have some other reason to think they have not communicated.
A lower level of independence would be: you know the witnesses have communicated but you can interview them and attempt to tease out some value.
We are now getting low on the independence scale but we have not got down to the level of the gospels yet. This is because, so far we have been talking about situations where we have the witnesses or at least know who the witnesses are and have some reason to think they are independent.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 06, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Anyone who cares about evidence and attends to the argument knows there is some reason to think the accounts are independent.
As above:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7047
Posted by: Daron | February 07, 2011 at 12:26 PM
I have attended from the beginning.
In the corner pub, I tell a story to two hundred of my closest friends. A hundred and fifty of them like the story so much that they each write their moms and include their own retelling of my story. Some mention hearing the story from someone else. Others don't. Some use some of my phrases word for word. Some 'remember' parts of the story that I never told. Some conflate it with a similar story they heard from someone else.
How many independent sources for a given event in my story exist?
(Hint: did I even say whether the story is true?)
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 07, 2011 at 01:30 PM
RonH, what does a hypothetical, possible lie to 150 people have to do with several independent sources attesting to the burial of Jesus?
Are you trying to illustrate that you believe there was only 1 witness (which I suspect you would not believe) and that this 1 witness (probably a liar in your opinion) told everyone about an event that didn't happen?
Posted by: NCDave | February 07, 2011 at 06:41 PM
NCDave,
No. I'm just pointing out that there are two meanings of source floating around here - one from textual criticism and one from history - and that inferring the existence of a source text through textual analysis does not, by itself, make that inferred source text a historical source.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 08, 2011 at 03:25 AM
And that is how RonH, who has never found a persuasive apologetic argument, deals with evidence.
Posted by: Daron | February 08, 2011 at 06:09 AM
Well, I guess it makes it historical in some sense or other of 'historical', but it doesn't make it 'attestation'.
To call it 'attestation' is a historical interpretation that doesn't come immediately out of textual analysis.
Posted by: RonH | February 08, 2011 at 06:47 AM
Hi Daron,
Can we agree that textual critics and historians mean two different things by 'source'?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 08, 2011 at 08:22 AM
Hi RonH,
No, I can't make any such pledge.
More importantly, though, I'd be agreeable to the proposition that you really aren't interested in any evidence or arguments as to the validity of Christian belief but, rather, will seek any way to dismiss, deny and gainsay and such claims.
Agreed?
Posted by: Daron | February 08, 2011 at 08:54 AM
Hi Daron,
In the article you linked, what do you think Craig means by independent source?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 08, 2011 at 05:44 PM
Hi Daron,
Craig counts 5 independent sources for the burial of Jesus. What reasons does he have or give for considering them independent?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 08, 2011 at 06:16 PM
Hi RonH,
What does Craig mean by "independent source"? That they are not dependent upon one another. That they are different sources.
His reasons, in brief, directly from that article:
But my point isn't to yet again read to and interpret for you throughout a long thread; it is to shine a light on you so you might take a look. Like you did, I ask that you give some thought to a little introspection.
You say you've been looking into this issue for six years, and that you've found it to have been a waste of your time. And yet here you are, constant as Eric's watch, gainsaying and challenging without doing any work or considering any arguments. It's funny, indeed, that in your six diligent years you've not investigated this point.
Why do you think this is, especially given your claim that you are unconvinced by any apologetic arguments and that this is the case because of your high standards of reason and evidence?
Posted by: Daron | February 08, 2011 at 09:31 PM
Take "Jesus was buried."
If Paul (or his inferred source) is older, then Paul is independent of Mark (or Mark's source). Simple.
But then, why is Mark independent of Paul?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 09, 2011 at 06:18 AM
Because he didn't get it from Paul.
You can ask all day why the sky is blue, RonH. It's not a very good way to get to the truth.
Posted by: Daron | February 09, 2011 at 07:27 AM
I hope this isn't a double post - my apologies if it is.
Perhaps you might actually read the accounts.
Paul:
http://carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/1-cor-153-4-demonstrates-creed-too-early-legend-corrupt
Mark:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+14&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+15&version=KJV
Does it really look to you like the second is derived from the first?
No, of course it doesn't. But that still isn't the issue. No amount of arguing and showing you evidence is going to change your mind, RonH. You've been posting for years and I'm sure you know you have not raised a single compelling challenge. And your every challenge has been answered to the satisfaction of countless people; just not to you. You say this is because you are a superior thinker. But an honest man would look at your posts and doubt that there is any particular reason to believe this. So what is really going on here? You should ask yourself that.
Now, of course, someone is going to rightly look at my comments and be concerned that I am not using this forum to debate only the facts, but that I am making this all about you and I'll be charged with ad hominem.
Indeed.
You are my concern here, not winning another argument or dashing from one end of the internet to the other for more links. The apolgetic arguments are one thing, and the reason behind them is another. I am arguing the case of RonH, not of the veracity of the Gospels. You've seen the arguments, the challenges, and the answers. And yet here you are, spinning your wheels some more, convincing and challenging nobody.
Why? As you said, I don't really need an answer - I just want you to think about it.
And pray.
God bless and keep you.
Daron
Posted by: Daron | February 09, 2011 at 07:56 AM
You mean: Does Mark look derived from Paul?
Well, the Mark does not look copied from the Paul. But that doesn't make them independent.
The point is: we can't trace the two versions all the way back to their first tellings to find out if they came from two persons who told their stories without consulting one another.
They say what Paul wrote is a creed. A creed is a summary. Well, maybe it's a summary of the Markan Passion.
The Mark has all of Paul's points:
* buried: 15:46
* raised on the 'third day': 16:6
* appeared to Cephas (Peter): 16:8
* then to the twelve (eleven): 16:14
It turns out that maybe the last two were not original to Mark. That would weaken the case for a connection. But it would not provide any positive evidence that the Mark and the Paul don't ultimately share a source.
What does serve as evidence for independence?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 10, 2011 at 06:32 PM
Paul didn't write it, he received it. Likely from the Apostles in Jerusalem after his conversion.
So you've switched back, I see. You asked how we know, assuming Paul was independent of Mark, that Mark is independent of Paul. Not even knowing what kind of materials you are discussing you have, now that your wild guess has been countered, to flip back and put Paul as dependent upon Mark - as a summary, in fact.But Paul's creed has that Christ died for our sins. This is not in Mark, thus, it comes from a different source. Mark does not say that Jesus was raised on the third day but on the first day of the week. This is, of course, the same day, but both traditions are memorizable pieces, so why would one memorable version be altered in this way when summed up?
In the parallel passage Mark has Jesus appearing to Mary first. But this is not a good apologetic and is not preserved in Paul's very early creed - his bypasses the women and gives primacy to the better witness, Cephas. Mark refers to the remaining Apostles by the precise number, 11, while Paul refers to them by their collective name, the Twelve. If his creed were a summation of Mark's Passion this change is inexplicable. Mark references, as well, the appearance on the Road to Emmaus, which Paul's so-called summation doesn't, and then Mark never even mentions a vision to Peter separate from the other Apostles; Paul could never have derived the appearance first to Peter and then to the others from Mark's account.
So although the accounts fit together and complement one another each has information that could not have been derived from the other. Thus, they are from independent sources.
So now, in your quest for real understanding, you've asked such ridiculous "oh yeah, prove it to me" questions as "what's a source?", "what's independent mean?" and even "what's evidence?"
Yep, you sure know how to evaluate evidence and arguments. As I said, you really need to evaluate your own heart.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Daron | February 10, 2011 at 08:48 PM
I haven't guessed or switched - I have no grounds to make a guess or a switch.
I don't claim to know Mark and Paul are dependent so I need not defend any reason to believe that.
I don't say Paul's creed is summarizing Mark's source - I just say that they have overlapping contents indicating Paul might be summarizing Mark.
Not anywhere? Really? What is Mark's gospel then?
The nature of the stories really precludes establishing testimonial independence. The supposed witnesses and others spent time together between the time of the events and the writings. That is part of the stories man. It's a given. And it's a given that speaks against testimonial independence.
By itself, analyzing text can pretty firmly establish textual dependence (copying). Long passages that match word for word (or almost match) do that. Establishing textual independence by analyzing text is not normally going to work. I can rephrase, re-order, revise, and embellish any story to the point where you won't know if I read version A, read version B, or lived the events myself.
Analyzing text can reliably establish testimonial dependence wherever it establishes textual dependence: The content of what I copied from you is the content of what I copied! But establishing testimonial independence via textual analysis alone is harder even than establishing textual independence.
Posted by: RonH | February 11, 2011 at 09:18 AM
Hi RonH,
First, as has been pointed out (there are links above, you realize) the Passion narrative is distinct from the rest of the Gospel and is the portion discussed above as being something Mark has received. Second, no, not anywhere. There are two phrases in Mark's Gospel which, when knowing all the New Testament, one would say make this claim, but they are not the source of the Creedal phrase 'He died for our sins'. Mark's Gospel is a biographical narrative not a treatise on Jesus' teachings. It is a demonstration of who He was and why one should believe the teachings already received. Then you should read up on the case and see how it is done and what the evidence for independence is.So here we are, once again.
You claim to be Mr. Evidence, Mr. I've Never Seen A Compelling Argument, and yet you haven't even read the shortest of the Gospels in your 6 years of "investigating" Christianity. You don't even have a principled reason for making the dependency suggestions you have thrown out here; you are merely conjecturing every which way (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it might be"). Like all internet skeptics, you are merely casting about for any reason to disbelieve. What's puzzling is why you think this casting about is worth anybody's consideration or why you think your guesses are worth sharing with the rest of the world.
You could easily go sit on your rock and disbelieve, same yourself some time, and be no less shielded from the truth.
Here's another one. Scroll up and down through pages 52-62 or so.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1ngd8XtswdEC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=mark+passion+independent+source&source=bl&ots=0zAlr6pqwQ&sig=6AnpRyO1MdPzB-vFUdgcR3TgDWc&hl=en&ei=Ia9UTZ70MYGdlgeim9S2Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=mark%20passion%20independent%20source&f=false
Not only do you not know Christianity, the Bible, or the apologetic arguments, you don't even know your own side's claims. If your argument held water then the skeptic would have no grounds to ask "where is the non-Canonical source?"Even a non-Canonical source would rely on the witnessing of the event or discussion with witnesses. Aha! Then it is not independent - it is dependent upon the same event!
Nobody is denying that the sources we have come from people who were in Jerusalem at the time and saw what happened. There were 12 Apostles (one not yet named), their wives, the family of Jesus, thousands of followers and hundreds of witnesses to His appearances. Nobody is denying that the first tellers of the story believed it to be true (ask yourself why everyone we have is a believer. No, really ask yourself. It speaks volumes) or that they were acquainted with one another. The defence is against the charge that the Gospels were written many decades later (of course the skeptics' claim of 'late Gospels' used to mean hundreds of years later but this baseless reason for disbelief has long since been abandoned) and were merely distorted re-tellings of one tale and that legendary accretions had grown up. No, the sources go back to the time of the event (no later than a few years, and more likely right up to the date, in the case of Paul's Creed) and are not developments of one account, but different accounts formed and learned by different groups of people. Thus, the Truth was known by several groups right away in several communities and they were not passing around the same poem but were telling what happened as their own witnesses shared it.
Now imagine your scenario. A few guys make up a story and decide to go out and tell it to people for some reason. They would tell the story they sat around and made up. The elements they put in it would be considered key elements to make the point they wanted and would not likely carry superfluous claims. The collusion would show in the continuity of the story and the telling (for instance, they would tell you whether or not Thomas was present at the appearance, or who went to the Tomb, etc). They wouldn't put in ambiguities and differences that could cast doubt on their tale. On the other hand, men heading out to tell the same story that they all know to be true would not collude and would tell the same story in their own ways, each omitting or focusing on different aspects at different points. Think of the multiple ways witnesses will describe a car accident as compared to how the story would come out if they were colluding to frame one person.
Posted by: Daron | February 11, 2011 at 11:44 AM
"He died for our sins"?
Who came up with this not having heard it from another?
He would be an independent testimonial source.
If he heard it from another and re-worded it he is not testimonially independent.
So how do you know...
... is testimonially independent of...
From whom did Paul receive his version?
How about (the author of) Mark?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 11, 2011 at 03:26 PM
Oops the question mark on the first line is a typo - and nothing else.
Posted by: RonH | February 11, 2011 at 03:27 PM
And I should have phrased it:
And will you join me here in a timeout: I congratulate the Egyptian people and encourage them to follow through with today's remarkable success by building a democracy. Sorry to go off topic. To paraphrase Joe Biden, this is a big deal.
Posted by: RonH | February 11, 2011 at 04:05 PM
The eyewitnesses to the life, death and appearances of Jesus; those being His disciples. Paul passed on what he received from them. His source is not dependent upon the source of the Markan Passion. If it were it would use the same wording, it would use the same order of events, it would focus on the same items, etc. Nobody dates Mark before the Creed. Paul is independent of the Gospel of Mark and the Creed is as well. He did not get his belief from the book. Mark, of course, used a (likely) written tradition for his Passion account. This did not derive from the Creed, either, as it is much longer and has a myriad of details which are independent of the Creed. If Mark were the source, and not other eye-witnesses of a true-to-life event, then Mark would be supplying the language and information. The passers-on of the Creed would not determine on their own that Cephas had an encounter with Jesus, nor would they call the eleven the Twelve, contrary to how Mark refers to them, nor would they invent the appearance to James, or the 500, nor would they get from anywhere in Mark that Peter was called Cephas. He would have to have some reason for the above - an independent reason, as this information is not in Mark.As for Egypt, I pray for them and wish them the best.
Posted by: Daron | February 11, 2011 at 09:58 PM
Woah Daron,
Me:
You:
First, the 'he' I referred to was not Paul (which is apparently what you thought). I referred to a hypothetical 'he' with direct involvement with the event in question and then, by contrast, I referred to a different hypothetical 'he' who paraphrase something he heard about it from another.
Second, (and I've said this several times in different ways apparently to no avail) identical wording can point reliably to a single textual source but different wording doesn't reliably point to different testimonial sources. Different wording can arise, for example, through different paraphrasing of the same testimony.
I'll say that one more time in one more different way: rewording hearsay doesn't create eyewitness testimony although it can create a new text (textual source). Consider my story about the pub.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | February 12, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Giddyup, RonH!
Yeah, I got all your "he"s. You'll note that upon a closer reading and then you'll notice it makes no difference which "he" we have in sight; whether it be Paul or the source behind Paul.You sure have. And I've responded. We don't have a paraphrase - we have different information. We don't merely have missing information from one source to the other - we have extra information.
Once again ... I hope to some avail: we can't derive from the Markan source that Jesus appeared to Cephas before the Twelve as the Creed says; we can't derive Mark's testimony that the women were the first witnesses from the Creed; you wouldn't get Paul's reference to the Twelve if his only source were the Markan Passion; Paul wouldn't even know that Peter was also Cephas if he had no source outside of Mark; you can't get from the Passion that Jesus died for our sins; you can't even get Mark's "first day of the week" from the Creed without another source because the Creed does not give us the Crucifixion day (notice that knowledge of this is assumed) ... etc.
By the way, you asked what "evidence" means but seem to have never considered its definition since then. Evidence is a reason to believe, it is not necessarily iron-clad proof. I have provided reams of evidence. All you have to counter are guesses, might'ves and can-bes. But evidence does not cease to exist just because the counter proposition is logically possible.
Posted by: Daron | February 12, 2011 at 03:40 PM
You got my "he's". Huh. Hm. Ok. This is a strange form of communication.
Maybe Mark left that bit out. Maybe someone in his chain of sources going back left it out. Maybe someone added it to Paul's chain - like a different original story teller.
Problems with the evidence for the Resurrection.
1) The prior probability of a resurrection is extremely low. So your evidence can multiply that extremely low probability many many times and still leave the resurrection very very unlikely.
2) Your evidence doesn't have that multiplicative power. The trail is too cold for it to rule out all the alternative hypotheses which taken together, start with a much much higher collective probability.
There's no physical evidence. There's no documented chain of custody going back to the supposed eyewitnesses. Even if that chain of custody existed, eyewitnesses are not what they used to be thought to be. See "The Innocence Project".
Posted by: RonH | February 12, 2011 at 09:25 PM
Posted by: Daron | February 12, 2011 at 09:53 PM
You are opening that gates of your class of 'attesting sources' to persons who might have no knowledge of any events in the story. You have no idea who they are. Call them independent if you like.
Posted by: RonH | February 13, 2011 at 06:43 AM
*the* gates
Posted by: RonH | February 13, 2011 at 06:44 AM
That happened? I wasn't aware.
Posted by: Daron | February 13, 2011 at 02:16 PM