Only one of the examples I gave didn’t fit that description, so you could have responded to the others. Your failure to do so suggests you have no response.
Neither Matthew nor John are written in the first person. Neither writer claims to have witnessed the resurrection themselves.
Nor do we even really know who wrote them. It’s highly unlikely that either Matthew nor John were written by eyewitnesses. It’s been pointed out to you before that the writer of John says he’s transcribing some-one else’s account, so you really should not be claiming now that the gospel writer witnessed the resurrection.
You definitely are overstating the evidence.
Irrelevant. Whether Matthew was written first has no bearing on whether the writer of Matthew says he was an eyewitness.
You just contradicted yourself. If the church were picking an apostle to name the gospel after, they might well pick the most literate/educated.
It’s really quite something to see how some Christians deny the scholarship of their own faith. To believe the Gospels were actually written by the guys they were named after is the equivalent of believing Jesus never existed at all. There may be some credible scholars here and there who believe it, but they are very much on the fringes if they do exist.
Could you support that comparison further? It seems highly exaggerated to me, particularly when there is decent evidence supporting traditional authorship, and nothing at all comparable to support Jesus mythicism.
How do you determine an argument is based on reliable scholarship or is simply based on ignorance of the bigger picture? The arguments you are posting do not make sense if you take into account the overall evidence.
I’ll admit it may have been an exaggeration. The fact remains that the scholarly consensus is strongly against the traditional authorship.
I will also admit that I am making the assumption that religious scholars are generally competent and not a bunch of ninnies who have no idea what they are talking about. If I am wrong about that, it hardly helps your position, does it?
I have yet to see a “skeptic” scholar take the big picture into account. They all do some form of cherry picking. This is how I became convinced of the reliability of the claims of Christian scholars like William Lane Craig and Tom (NT)Wright.
I’m not talking about “skeptics”. I’m talking about mainstream Christian scholarship. Such as is summarized below by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. (I know American Evangelicals like yourself consider Catholicism to be some sort of heretical cult, but that is immaterial to our discussion.)
Oh, but since you say you accept NT Wright as a reliable scholar, here is what he has to say on the subject:
Now tell me again about how “skeptics” like myself are ignorant about the “big picture”, but you’re so well-informed. I’m all ears, Bill…
What I would tell you is that going back and forth on the authorship debate does very little to affirm the truth of Christianity. NT Wright is skeptical about the exact identity of the authors yet he is a firm believer in the truth of Christianity. I would argue is that his confidence based on his extensive study he is knowledgable about the bigger picture such as the integrity of the overall message the Bible delivers.
Except that is what is being discussed here. If you are willing to concede that we have no idea who wrote the Gospels or when and, therefore, they cannot be taken as eyewitness accounts, we are in agreement and have nothing more to discuss on this topic. Others here continue to deny what is readily apparent to you and I, and it is with them I am debating.
We have a pretty good idea who was involved in providing information that are contained in the Gospels and the writings. I would concede that scholarship consensus is fuzzy on the issue of exactly who put pen to papyrus.
The video was helpful Matthew thanks. The most important thing is that everyone agrees there is no competing tradition in the first 400 years of the church. The part about Celsus was fascinating.
There’s a difference between being an academic in a secular world, and saying - as a Christian these arguments are compelling and strengthen my faith even if all secular scholars don’t agree. That being said, I agree with Matthew on your comparison needing more support.
I should not have ascribed motives to Paulogia that he himself doesn’t give, I apologize for that. I did listen again to his conversation with Sean McDowell from last year (I can give you the time stamps from the video if you want.) He accepts the evidence that Paul and Peter are sincere in their beliefs and that they died under Nero. It’s implied in the video that this would fit the definition of a martyr who died for their sincere belief. So his choices are that that evidence may support the resurrection or there has to be a natural explanation. He chooses a natural explanation. Sean argued he’s skeptical of other good evidence. I agree.
But I don’t think it’s fair to say I was careless, just wrong to ascribe motives about why he gives the argument he does, especially why he includes a short explanation about John. I understood that he understood the martyr evidence for Paul and Peter was strong or he would have said it was all made up - no need for anyone to hallucinate people or visions.
I’m not sure what you want me to respond to. I checked those examples. I don’t think any of them fit my definition completely. One is a suicide, Koresh and others may have started a fire, Joseph Smith tried to defend himself and get away; though I’m not sure that discounts him as a martyr, so he may be the best example out of the three.
If the church everywhere throughout the world has been consistent for 2000 years, should I consider it to be highly unlikely they wrote the gospels that bear their names and describe the resurrection, if I’m not aware of any other specific alternative to authorship?
A bunch of people lied to start a religion and a history records with high confidence a few did die for it, and perhaps others maybe did.
They all fit your description - people started a religon based on lies, and they and others died for it - with the possible exception that Applethwaite and Nettles may have been sincere but mistaken.
We know such things have happened, elsewhere, so can’t rule out the possibility that Christianity started similarly purely on probabilistic grounds. Especially when compared with resurrections.
They haven’t.
No. You should consider it highly unlikely they wrote the gospels attributed to them because of discrepancies between the texts and the story of their authorship.
You should also be aware that being unaware of a specified alternative is not a reason to accept anything, especially when there are legitimate reasons to doubt it.
Apart from the obvious problem that ‘Matthew’ isn’t 2000 years old and the first reference to it by that name is not only nearly a century after is was probably written but also ambiguous, you’re now moving the goalposts by limiting your scope - effectively admitting your claim was wrong.
Mark and Matthew duplicate large swathes of text, which is inconsistent with them being accounts by different witnesses.
Yes. The difference is that, as a “secular” scholar, one is required to follow the evidence where an objective evaluation leads. If you are willing to accept that this does not lead to the conclusion that the a resurrection is the best explanation for the data, but choose to believe in the resurrection regardless because of something to do with “faith”, then we have no disagreement.
It’d be helpful if you’d name the reference to make it possible for me to respond without making the wrong assumption.
Isn’t that always true of eyewitnesses? They’re going to see some evidence that same way. If Matthew is writing his gospel as a manifesto of the apostles showing how Jesus was the Messiah (as the church fathers say Matthew’s gospel was first) and Mark put together the memoirs of Peter, if should especially have overlap regarding Peter especially.
Scholars are also allowed to challenge the consensus.
Here is where I think it gets complicated. Not all scholars are willing to consider the supernatural as an option. Is there anyone who can confirm the resurrection is the best possible explanation and remain agnostic? That doesn’t make sense in my mind. I do believe the resurrection is the best explanation but that also requires faith. Not every scholar is going to consider an argument that leads to the supernatural or faith because of personal biases IMO.
Of course. But not to pretend the consensus does not exist when it does.
Good,we are approaching agreement and common ground.
Unless a “scholar’s” work is biased in favour of the existence of the “supernatural” and on the basis of personal “faith”, he will not conclude that evidence favours a resurrection.
This does not mean that a scholar who does hold these biases on a personal level is not able to set them aside in her work and still arrive at the objectively correct conclusion. And that is the case with most Christian scholars who have looked at the question.
If you don’t think it’s possible to respond without making wrong assumptions, my naming the reference isn’t going to help you.
No, it’s not always true of eyewitnesses. It’s obviously not always true of eyewitnesses. Witnesses of e.g. road accidents do not crib from each other when giving their statements.
When witness statements are too similar it throws doubts on their veracity, because it suggests the witnesses colluded to testify regarding something that they may not have witnessed and may even be untrue.
It’s trivial* to find legal cases where this point is made. Here, for example, or here. Here. Here.
*For anyone who can use a search engine, anyway.
If Mark put together the memoirs of Peter, why does he include no post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to Peter, unlike the other gospels? Did Peter forget what he’d seen?
The gospels are too similar on pre-resurrection events to be considered eyewitness accounts, and too different on post-resurrection events to be credible.
