<<The criteria listed represent *necessary*, not *sufficient*
conditions for accepting testimonial evidence under common law.>>
They are criteria for assessing the RELIABILITY of the testimony.
<< I'd be careful with that challenge, for
it would seem all too easy to build a case acceptable to
skeptics on criteria 1, 2, 4, and 6.>>
I don't think it is easy at all. For example, there has been some discussion
of #1, veracity. What evidence is there to make a case that the four Gospel
writers were men of deceptive or nefarious character?
How about #2? It has been suggested that the four Gospel writers engaged in a
mendacious scheme, but no motive has been given. Why not? Because it defies
common sense.
And so forth.
<<But we are not in a courtroom, and we have other sources of
information concerning the reliability of testimony.>>
What other sources are you thinking of?
<<Studies
involving eyewitness accounts of staged or recorded events
indicate that even eyewitnesses who pass muster for at least
five of the six criteria listed may still give erroneous
testimony.>>
In individual instances. When more than one eyewitness is involved, it is much
easier to reach agreement on what really happened.
<<It turns out that the long-denigrated other class of evidence,
circumstantial evidence, has much to commend it over
testimonial evidence.>>
This is an oversimplification, in my view. No two cases are alike. In the
matter of the Gospels, however, testimonial evidence must of necessity take
precedence. What else is there?
Jim