Open Letter to Lydia McGrew: your online yammering is so extensive, it constitutes the word-wrangling the bible prohibits

Dr. McGrew,

You seem to specialize in ceaseless "he-said-she-said".  This is clear to anybody who reads your blogs, especially your arguments concerning Mike Licona.

The bible prohibits Christians from wrangling words:

 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.   (2 Tim. 2:12-15 NAU)

Taken in their own context, we do not smoosh these verses together with other bible statements about the need to defend the faith or what Jesus and Paul did during debates.   Otherwise, that's like a parent telling a child "stop arguing witih your sister", and the child responding 

"I need to interpret this in light of your other commands that I stick up for myself and not back down from a challenge, and you usually argue with dad yourself, an example I wish to follow, so I'll take your current command as a general prohibition that leaves it up to me to ultimately decide whether the way I communicate with my sister constitutes the type of "arguing" that you are prohibiting me from engaging in."

Furthermore, if Paul wrote the pastorals, he likely did so in old age, and since you are not an inerrantist, nothing prevents you from entertaining the possibility that when Paul told his followers not to wrangle words, this was an elderly man looking back on those times when he went around wrangling words with others (Acts 19:8-10) and, now in old age, has arrived at the conclusion that this was not godly behavior.

If you are not an inerrantist, then you cannot really say for sure that the prohibition against word-wrangling needs to be interpreted in the light of other bible verses like 2nd Cor. 10:5 or Jude 3...just like you also cannot say for sure whether those bible passages must be interpreted in the light of Paul's prohibition on word-wrangling.

If you insist on using other bible verses, there's another pastoral epistle in which Paul instructs the leaders how to deal with those who persist in the wrong.  He does not say to "argue" with them but to "warn" them, and then avoid them thereafter if they fail to heed the correction upon the second admonition:

 8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
 (Tit. 3:8-11 NAU)

I'm sure you will reply with:

 23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.
 24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.   (2 Tim. 2:23-26 NAU)

But notice the immediate context:  while you are required to correct those in opposition, you are also to
be "kind" and "gentle" when correcting, and as we'll see below, one of Licona's reasons for refusing to debate you directly is your unkind tone, which he takes as signifying a desire to ceaselessly trifle in an unproductive way.

Notice also, you are to "refuse" foolish and ignorant speculations.  No, "refuse" doesn't mean "refute", as most popular English bibles render this as "have nothing to do with", and the odds are not good that they got the Greek wrong:

KJV  2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

NAS  2 Timothy 2:23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.

NAU  2 Timothy 2:23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.

NIV  2 Timothy 2:23 Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

NKJ  2 Timothy 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.

NRS  2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with stupid and senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

RSV  2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

Do you have nothing to do with foolish and ignorant questions?  As we'll see below, the colorful epithets you use to characterize Licona's arguments, require the conclusion that you think Licona's reasoning constitutes ignorant and foolish speculation...which then commits you to staying away from them...which means your eager desire to dive deep into that pool of Liconaian controversy constitutes your sin.

For example, notice how your criticism of Licona makes it appear that you think the way he gets things done is foolish and ignorant:

This is a disastrous methodology. In this methodological approach, Licona takes such an incredibly rigid notion of unreliable (I unapologetically use the term "unreliable") genre that he is making it a virtue to jump to the conclusion that the evangelists were fictionalizing, without first attempting to harmonize the passages. This is a recipe for getting it wrong over and over again and engaging in blatant confirmation bias. Having assumed at the outset that the evangelists are frequent fictionalizers, one then "confirms" this pre-existing assumption by "finding" more and more instances of their fictionalizing even when harmonization would be quite possible.This methodology completely ignores the fact that variation and even apparent, but ultimately resolvable, discrepancies are normal in truthful testimony.

Elsewhere, you assert: 

… As I have shown, Licona jumps to conclusions, overreads, interprets rigidly, and ignores plausible harmonizations in Plutarch himself.

…Neither Licona nor anyone else has ever given good reason to believe that the Gospels belong to a "genre" such that their variations should be expected to be frequently (or ever, for that matter) the result of deliberate changes of fact.

…For we have seen that, when it comes to something like the difference between two blind men and one blind men or two demoniacs and one demoniac, Licona apparently places extremely far-fetched theories about Matthew's "doubling up" on blind men and demoniacs on a par with a harmonizing theory that Mark mentioned only one of the individuals who was actually healed.

This interview certainly helps to explain why, again and again, we have found Licona jumping to conclusions and even making utterly unforced errors about differences in the Gospels. I'm sorry to have to say it, but apparently he considers those to be features, not bugs, in his preferred approach.

…I have argued in this series that Licona's argument fails at every point. He does not justify his claims concerning Plutarch in the first place, and he does not justify his claims concerning the Gospels, either. He gives us no good reason to accept the conclusion that the Gospel authors ever changed the facts deliberately, either for theological or for literary reasons.

Elsewhere, you claim Licona has taken all of the high Christological "I Am" statements of Jesus in the gospel of John, and thrown them under the bus:

In the ensuing thread, Mike Licona, still regarded by many as in some measure a conservative biblical scholar, came in and apparently defended Evans's comments throwing all of the "I am" statements under the bus. He is, to my mind, fairly explicit, though not quite as explicit as Evans.

Lydia, as a Christian, do you believe it is either "foolish" or "ignorant" to take all of the high Christological "I Am" statements of Jesus in the gospel of John, and throw them under the bus?  If so, then doesn't your opinion at that point require that Licona has implicated the "foolish" or "ignorant" speculations that Paul explicitly forbade you from involving yourself in?  Yet your article there is several pages long.

Lydia, you also say of Licona:

To try to get away with brushing off the importance of the question, as Licona does, is just breathtaking. I have no doubt that Dr. Licona has convinced himself of what he says about the "irrelevance" of the historicity of these statements in John, but it is certainly untrue, and Christians need to reject it decisively

If you characterizes Licona's alleged errors as "breathtaking" and things Christians must "decisively" reject, I don't see how you can escape the conclusion that you personally believe the Liconian errors you seek to correct constitute the exact "foolish and ignorant speculations" that Paul so clearly prohibited Christians from arguing about.

 In that same post, you conclude by implicitly sourcing Licona's conclusions in the devil, the same place you think Ehrman's conclusions come from:

Making false epistemic claims merely gives us false comfort. Let us, as knowledgeable and informed Christians, instead admit the importance of John's Gospel and then defend it vigorously, with reasons and evidence. But it appears that we will have to do so without the help of Dr. Evans and Dr. Licona and perhaps others. If so, be it so. Greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world, Bart Ehrman included. (I John 4:4)

 Lydia, now that you've pretty much declared that Licona's reasoning about the high Christology in John's gospel comes from the pit of hell, must you not admit you are forced to conclude that Licona's reasoning is foolish and ignorant?

Lydia, you also use "silliness" at the same link to characterize the way Licona goes about explaining why Luke appearar discrepant on his account of the resurrection events:

The problem with the Jerusalem vs. Galilee thing is just the silliness of saying that such fictionalizations are consistent with Luke's being *accurate*. That's not sensible. But it is *part and parcel* of Mike's "intact" (if you like that word) argument to the effect that it's just no problem if the gospel authors changed facts repeatedly. This is an example of that supposedly in Luke. That's what he's saying to Bart. He's being quite consistent with his own theories about "compositional devices." Those *are* his theories. It's just applying the word "accurate" to it that looks ridiculous, and Bart skewered that, as of course he would do. 3/11/2018 12:36 PM

 Now that you are calling Licona's position "silliness", do you now agree that it qualilfies as the thing Paul in 2nd Timothy 2:23 told you to avoid?

Or will your obesession with professional hair-splitting require that you trifle that there's a signinficant  difference between "silliness" and "foolish and ignorant speculations"?

 Here's more of your language about Licona:

…Licona is expressly arguing that Jesus would not and hence did not publicly, clearly, and overtly claim to be God in the real world.

…Needless to say, Licona's arguments here are extremely weak.

…Every time I think that some new shift from Dr. Licona can't surprise me, he surprises me.

…Saddened as I am by what Dr. Licona is apparently endorsing, I'm afraid that I think this is a crucial enough matter that it needs to be known.

…Jesus' claims to deity are, to put it mildly, important, and so people should know when scholars think he didn't make them. I pray that the Lord will use any such publicizing and/or criticisms that come as a result to motivate Dr. Licona to reconsider.

Update: Dr. Licona has responded in "grieved" fashion to my critique in this post, adding an entirely ex post facto caveat to his original comment, a change which in any event does not render his comments unobjectionable or unimportant. And certainly does not make me a misrepresenter of what he said. I will quote his response, leaving out only an unnecessary name of a participant on Facebook and, at the end, some irrelevant ad hominem patronization directed towards me.

…This is, pace Licona, still a very low view of John's accuracy, even after the backtrack. And if John made up the "I am" statements, the doubts of his accuracy are cast far wider than even those statements. As far as what we have to "be comfortable with," foot-stomping and saying, "We have to be comfortable with that" is pointless. It does not take the place of a good argument for what God, and John, actually did. What it comes to is, "If God gave us factually crappy gospels, we have to live with that, and I'm going to deem anybody impious who is bothered by the possibility." This is faux piety. God didn't have to send Jesus to die at all. He didn't have to give us such good records of Jesus' life. But he seems to have done so. Let's not pretend that it's no big deal if we are left with only a poor and unreliable record in John of what Jesus taught about one of the most important truths in the world--that Jesus is God. It is a big deal. Merely saying that if these records are poor, we have to "be comfortable with that," is ridiculous. Actually, we don't have to be comfortable. We should mourn if that's the situation, not "be comfortable." Fortunately, there are not good arguments for Licona's agnosticism about Jesus' explicit claims to deity. So please, stop patronizingly telling us what we need to be comfortable about.

When you responded to a Dale Tuggy, you made clear that you were pouring forth a lot of effort to criticize Licona because you thought he was paving the way for people to justify denial of doctrines you'd be willing to die for:

Lydia McGrew said...

"spanking Licona for being too close to the boundaries of evangelicalism"
To me, this is not about some kind of arbitrary social boundaries but about issues that are a great deal more important than that. Indeed, issues (such as the deity of Jesus and his resurrection, and the strength of the evidence for it) for which I would be willing to die.
I really don't particularly care about your snark on that, but I'm not at all ashamed to say that I am spending an enormous amount of energy right now trying to convince other people that what Licona is doing *matters* to important issues and that they should take it seriously and give it the careful examination it deserves (by which it will be found wanting) rather than just accepting whatever he says and defending him to the death. Or saying that it's unimportant.....3/10/2018 12:12 PM

Licona certainly feels that your “tone” indicates an uncharitable attitude on your part unbecoming a person interested in productive dialogue:

Engaging with Lydia would require a significant amount of time. Since her blogs on my book are very long, I would begin by reading them, which would take a few hours. Replying to them cannot be completed in a mere 45 minutes but would require much more time. I’d probably be looking at a solid week of work. Then, if Lydia’s past actions are indicative of what would happen next, she would write very long replies to my responses. And those now desiring me to reply would also want for me to reply to her reply. To do that would require another week’s work. So far, I would be looking at a solid two weeks that could be spent otherwise in research or writing.
I’m virtually certain things would not end there, since Lydia would feel compelled to reply to my second reply. And the process goes on, requiring even more hours. (Even a back and forth for Philosophia Christi would require a chunk of time.) Seven years ago when another person was writing a dozen or so open letters to me on the Internet that criticized my book on Jesus’s resurrection, several highly respected evangelical scholars counseled me to ignore him, since engaging would end up sucking up an inordinate amount of my time and would not result in good fruit for the kingdom. I’m very glad I followed their advice, since my refusing to be sidetracked has allowed my ministry to expand nationally and internationally.
Understandably, Tom and some others may answer that, while a significant amount of time would be required of me, I should spend the required time considering Lydia’s criticisms carefully and either revising my position or clarifying and defending it. I do not share their sense of necessity. When I observe several theologians and New Testament scholars, such as J. I. Packer, Robert Stein, Darrell Bock, Mark Strauss, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, Craig Blomberg, and Scot McKnight (all of whom are evangelical and have expertise in the Gospels, having spent decades studying them with passion and reverence) and Christopher Pelling, the foremost scholar on Plutarch, all having read my book and expressed varying degrees of approval while none have expressed anywhere close to the degree of alarm we are seeing from Lydia, I do not feel a necessity to spend the sort of time and emotional capital required to engage Lydia, especially when her critiques are seasoned with a tone that I consider less than charitable, to put it mildly. Therefore, I will leave to others the task of engaging with her.

 Licona feels "grieved" that you have misrepresented him about John's I AM sayings:

So, I’m grieved to see Lydia once again stretching my words to say more than I did. I try to nuance my words carefully, especially in view of some like Lydia who wish things were stated with a precision that leaves no questions unanswered. But that’s an unreasonable expectation for online discussions. Sometimes I am not as careful as I should be and assume (wrongly) that others will grant some leeway in communications and be charitable.

Apparently, having a Ph.d doesn't make you infallible.  Lydia's penchant for hair-splitting can be graphically seen here:

The next point I want to note is the abuse of the term "paraphrase." If, as discussed by Licona elsewhere, all that Jesus said and did concerning his deity is the kind of implication that we find in the synoptic Gospels, if the scenes surrounding John 8:58 and John 10:31 and the shocking statements by Jesus in those verses never took place in any recognizable form, and if John wrote the scenes as they occur in his Gospel anyway, knowing that they never took place historically in a recognizable fashion, this is not paraphrase. It is not remotely like paraphrase. It is fiction, pure and simple. It might or might not be fiction based on theological truth as taught by Jesus in some other fashion. But that does not make it a paraphrase. To use "paraphrase" in this way is the sheerest word kidnapping, and it needs to be called out sharply and unequivocally.

 And more graphic word-wrangling here:

Lydia McGrew said...
Well, probably, to be as charitable as possible, in that *particular* sentence the phrase "would have said" is ill-chosen and is a result of Licona's haste and (okay, maybe this part isn't quite so charitable) the fact that he's trying not to commit himself too far to the theory he's outlining.

I think since the word "implicitly" follows "would have said and done," he actually means that this is what Jesus *actually did say and do but only implicitly* via the incidents he has just before this been detailing from Mark. "Would have said" is *in this instance* probably just poor wording, since he's just been arguing that Jesus really did *imply* that he was God in Mark.

However, this doesn't really get away from your larger point, which is to wonder (rightly) what possible right John would have had to make up whole scenes in which Jesus made things more explicit, if the real Jesus himself chose not to do so!

This is particularly true for "Before Abraham was, I am," since it uses the formula that Yahweh used in the OT for his own name, sacred to the Jews. John was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. His alleged audience were Jews. The idea that it would be a *small matter* for John to write such a scene fictionally when no such scene occurred recognizably is just jaw-dropping. And to say that such a statement by Jesus to a Jewish audience, written as fiction, "came to the same thing" as *any series of implications that do not include that scene* is frankly outrageous.
3/27/2018 8:11 PM

What could be more "word wrangling" than disagreeing with Licona about whether something John said constituted a paraphrase or fiction?

Gee, Lydia, you've now characterized Licona's views and reasoning as

• disastrous methodology
• incredibly rigid notion of unreliable (I unapologetically use the term "unreliable") genre recipe for getting it wrong over and over again and engaging in blatant confirmation bias.
• jumps to conclusions, overreads, interprets rigidly, and ignores plausible harmonizations  
• hasn’t ever given good reason to believe that the gospel authors deliberately change the facts  
• extremely far-fetched theories about Matthew...
• jumping to conclusions and even making utterly unforced errors    
• Licona's argument fails at every point.
• Licona throws John’s “I Am” statements under the bus.
• his attempts to avoid the problems his own reasoning creates is “just breathtaking”
• Christians should reject “decisively” Licona’s position.
• Makes false epistemic claims,
• If you wish to defend John’s high Christology, Licona won’t help
• Greater is he that is in you than he that is in Ehrman and Licona.
• Licona’s explanations for Luke’s resurrection narrative “silliness” and “not sensible”
• “looks ridiculous”
• Licona is expressly arguing that Jesus would not and hence did not publicly, clearly, and overtly claim to be God in the real world.  
• Licona's arguments here are extremely weak.
• You are “saddened” by what Licona endorses
• Licona engaged in  irrelevant ad hominem patronization directed towards you
• This is, pace Licona, still a very low view of John's accuracy, even after the backtrack
• faux piety
• Licona has messed up on doctrinal issues you’d be willing to die for (like deity of Jesus and his resurrection)
• You are spending an enormous amount of energy criticizing Licona
• He uses “paraphrase” in a way constituting the sheerest word kidnapping, and it needs to be called out sharply and unequivocally.
• He’s trying to avoid committing himself too much to the theory he’s outling.
• Jaw-dropping error and frankly outrageous

Lydia, if you don't think your ceaseless trifling with Licona and other Christian scholars constitute the type of word-wrangling which Paul prohibited, then could you please provide an example of hypothetical dialogue in which the Christian participants would be "wrangling words" ?

Here's the problem you face:

If you answer the challenge with example-dialogue that is rather stupid and childish, the readers will be suspicious that you think Paul was prohibiting only the most unbelievably immature instances of "yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, not it isn't", when you cannot find any NT scholar who thinks the "world-wrangles" Paul was talking about were this shockingly babyish.

If your example dialogue shows two scholars who refuse to give up the fight, and just ceaselessly go back and forth about their disagreement over the meaning of a word, or how somebody intended a phrase, etc., you run the risk of admitting that what Paul was prohibiting was the kind of crap you engage in.

Will you take the test?  If you take it, you run the risk of getting an "F".  If you don't take it, lesser educated Christians who read this will wonder whether your brand of he-said-she-said really does constitute the very "word wrangling" Paul forbade.

My personal opinion is that you are a typical woman, you obviously love gossip, and because the bible forbids you from gossiping, you've found you can get the same "he-said-she-said" sinful chattering thrill if you choose to make biblical issues the subject of your ceaseless yammering.

I'll have you know that when the apostle Paul gave the reason that a women should not be a teacher, he did not cite to anything cultural, he cited to a biblical statement about women being inferior to man because Eve was created after Adam, and because Eve was "deceived" by the serpent in the garden of Eden:

 8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
 9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (1 Tim. 2:8-15 NAU)

Apparently, Paul thought that a woman's unfitness to teach correctly arises from her being created after Adam, and had to do with her having been "decieved".  You certainly don't agree that the order in which men and women were created has anything to do with why a woman should be prohibited from teaching men.  But Paul sure did.

In context, Paul also said he wanted men to pray and for women to avoid wearing much makeup.  Do you think that was limited to just the culture Paul was writing in?  Or do you believe all Christian men should pray and that it is always improper in any culture for a Christian woman to be decked out in makeup, expensive jewelry and costly array?  Sort of looks like Paul is talking about biblical and moral truths in the immediate context, which of course implies that his reasons for prohibiting women from teaching, also in that context, cannot be circumnavigated around by appeal to "culture".

Lydia, do you agree with apostle Paul that because Eve wasn't created first, and because Eve was deceived by the serpent, a woman shouldn't be allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man, yes or no?

Or do you hold that the bible is only "sufficient" for faith and morals when supplemented by commentaries written by modern day sinners who lack the level of divine inspiration the bible authors had?

For all these reasons, I find all Christian scholarly peer-review, and especially Lydia McGrew's ceaseless trifles, guilty of violating apostle Paul's prohibition on word-wrangling.  And worse, this is not an isolated instance.  Lydia takes to the blogosphere with her ceaseless back and forth "he-said-she-said" bullshit as if there could be no question that this is a legitimate way to carry out one's Christian duty to correct those who are in error, whereas I've shown that a weighty case can be made that in his older years, the apostle Paul did not allow his followers to engage in such word-disputes, certainly not to the extreme length & degree that Lydia does with the internet facilitating and encouraging that sin more than any ancient Christian could ever imagine.

So the problem also implicates the question of whether Lydia has been mistaking sinful actions with godly conduct for the number of years she's been shouting down her critics. Can Christians seriously say that some Christian 'scholar' was guided by God while never noticing that her conduct was prohibited by basic NT ethics?

If Lydia's numerous gossipy acerbic trifling online screeds about the million different ways that a word or phrase can be understood, don't qualify as "word wrangling", nothing would. 

And the ever-mouthy geeks at Triablogue, equally as condescending as her, share in her sin by further advertising it.

 ---------------------------------
 I've just provided the link to this page at about a dozen different YouTube videos involving Licona and McGrew, for example: Six Bad Habits of New Testament Scholars (and how to avoid them): Dr. Lydia McGrew

Cold Case Christianty: The case for justifying skepticism toward the eyewitness status of the gospel authors

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

The Case for the Eyewitness Status of the Gospel Authors

Posted: 01 Jun 2018 01:52 AM PDT

I’m often challenged about status of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.

 And you always ignore direct challenges from skeptics to do comprehensive written or live debates about the subjects in your books.  Apparently, good marketers know that a sale is more likely to be made if the presentation is short, sweet, one-sided, and assures the reader that what they already believe, turns out to be defensible.   I see no difference between you and a Mormon apologist speaking in a Mormon church about how Jerald and Sandra Tanner got it all wrong. 

Many skeptics reject the eyewitness authority of these accounts, even though the early Church selected and embraced the canonical Gospels based primarily on the eyewitness authority of their authors.

There is no reason to think that the earliest of the church fathers from Irenaeus to Jerome were doing anything more in assigning names to the gospel authors, than uncritically passing down tradition, or what they heard from their own teachers.  3rd century Origen is one example:

  Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son." 1 Peter 5:13 And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

 Indeed...how else would the church fathers of the 2nd century and forward have known such things, given that they lived after the apostles died?  Email?

If you wish to say Papias is an exception and got his authorship information straight from an original apostle/elder, be prepared to also admit that he also got straight from an original apostle weird stories about grapes talking to people.  You will remain on the front-line with Papias and stand shoulder to shoulder with him.  If he goes down, you go down.  I've already debated Monte Shanks, author of Papias and the New Testament, the latest and best defense of the conservative Christian view on Papias.

Some skeptics argue the Gospels were never even intended to be seen as eyewitness testimony, in spite of the fact the earliest students of the apostles (and first Church leaders) repeated the content of the Gospels in their own letters, affirming the eyewitness status of the Gospels.

Probably because those skeptics have good reasons to suspect that there are serious credibility problems with the post-apostolic fathers. Shall we start with Ignatius, most of whose epistles are forgeries?  Shall we start with Irenaeus, who thought Jesus' earthly ministry lasted 10 years and that he died at 50 years old?

Or does the sense of fulfillment and purpose in life one gets by attending church regularly, outweigh any scholarly trifle some skeptic might raise?

It might be helpful, therefore, to review the context in which the Gospel events were first observed, recorded and transmitted in the 1st Century:

No, it wouldn't be helpful, not to your case. Obviously Jesus' mother and brothers were eyewitnesses to his earthly ministry, yet they drew the conclusion he was insane, they tried to take custody of him and put an end to his public ministry, and they didn't believe his claims during that ministry:

 20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
 21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."   (Mk. 3:20-21 NAU)

 Inerrantist Christian scholars admit the obvious:

3:21 In the Greek text the subject of the first two clauses is literally “those with him.” The KJV and RSV (1st ed.) interpret this to mean “his friends,” the NASB and NKJV “his own people,” and the RSV (2nd ed.), NRSV, NEB, REB, and NIV “his family.” In view of vv. 31–32 the last of these is certainly correct. The idea that Jesus’ family opposed him troubled some ancient copyists who changed the text to read, “When the scribes and the rest heard.” The concern of Jesus’ family was not likely limited to his physical needs (v. 20); they probably were more concerned about the family’s reputation because in their estimation Jesus was acting in a fanatical and even insane way. The same verb is used in Acts 26:24 and 2 Cor 5:13 and means literally to stand outside of oneself. The verb translated “to take charge” means to arrest in 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, etc. Evidently they intended to seize Jesus and force him to return to Nazareth with them.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 73). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

John 7:5, speaking about what Jesus' brothers believed as late as about a third of the way into his earthly ministry, says they didn't believe in him:

1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
 4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. (Jn. 7:1-5 NAU)

  Inerrantist Christian scholars admit the obvious, but also refrain from giving any believable explanation for this otherwise shocking bit of opposition toward Jesus by his own family:

It is apparent from the text that Jesus’ brothers were not yet to be numbered among the believers. Several writers have seen a confirmation in the similar lack of belief on the part of the brothers in the Markan account at 3:21, 31–35.7 The brothers’ failure to believe in him (John 7:5) was accompanied by a challenge to make evident his messiahship by some public display (7:3–4). In John the demand for signs or public display is an evidence that such persons have an inadequate relation to Jesus, and as a result they are to be reckoned among those who stand condemned (3:18). There is little middle ground in this Gospel for fence-sitters. As far as any believing on the brothers’ part is concerned, it is clear that such would have to await the postresurrection period when, for example, James, the brother of the Lord, became a leader in the Jerusalem church (cf. Gal 1:19 particularly and also Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:8). The brothers’ argument here that he ought to leave Galilee and do his works in Judea should not be understood as though Jesus had not done any works in Jerusalem (cf. 5:2–9). Instead, it should be understood from their point of view that it was an appropriate festive time for a messianic revelation and that if he was a messianic figure, then he ought to focus his works where they would gain the most attention.

Borchert, G. L. (2001, c1996). Vol. 25A: John 1-11 (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 280).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Maybe Wallace can explain how these eyewitnesses, with their very special position of knowing Jesus more intimately than the crowds (they were his immediate family) could be so opposed to his earthly ministry...especially under Wallace's presupposition that during that ministry, Jesus' miracles were numerous, genuinely supernatural, and noised abroad by most of those who benefited from them?

Another question:  Is the mother of Jesus as described in Mark 3:21 as having concluded Jesus had gone insane, the same mother of Jesus whom recieved all those divine confirmations during her pregnancy that this Jesus was the true Son of God (nativity stories in Matthew and Luke)?

Gee, maybe the mother Mary in Mark 3:21 was his step-mother?  After all, no excuse can be too stupid when bible inerrancy is on the chopping block, amen?

Wallace continues:

Eyewitness Authority Is Inherent to the Gospels

The Gospel accounts are written as historical narratives.

Not according to conservative Christian inerrantist Craig Evans, who has infamously remarked on more than one occasion that Jesus did not say many of the things put in his mouth by the gospel of John.  Evans thinks the genre of John is not the same as that of the Synoptics.

In this he is joined by 2nd century Clement of Alexandria, who called John a  "spiritual" gospel, and defined it as concerned with something other than the "external facts" the way the Synoptics were. From Eusebius, Church History:

 Chapter XIV. The Scriptures Mentioned by Him.
Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:  The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.

 Clearly "spiritual" here is being contrasted with "external facts" as laid out in the Synoptics, therefore, if John was a "spiritual gospel", it was a gospel that was trying to do something other than set forth the "external facts", a job John knew had already been accomplished 3 times in the past by 3 prior authors.
 While that doesn't mean John's gospel is 100% fiction, it does indeed say that John was concerned to do more than merely set out "external facts", which means John's author was concerned to provide more in that gospel than simply what Jesus said and did.

Craig Evans thus is not wrong in disagreeing with you and holding that the genre of John's gospel is something other than "historical"...unless you wish to open Pandora's Box by speculating that 2nd century Clement got this wrong?  If so, we have to wonder how many other early church fathers...the ones you rely on throughout this article of yours, got issues of gospel authorship wrong?

The life of Jesus is intertwined with historical events locating it geographically and historically.

And the eyewitness on the stand said she was there and saw the crash as it occurred...so the jury has no choice except to believe her, because "eyewitness" equals "infallible".   Sure, you'll deny you are teaching this here, but that is the practical result of your generalized uncritical remarks that the gospels arise from eyewitness testimony.  For some reason, you seem to think this boots their historical credibility, when in fact that is insufficient to put the skeptic in the position of being intellectually compelled to find their claims true.

The Gospels repeatedly affirmed their own historical, eyewitness nature, mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as eyewitnesses:

John 1:6-7

There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.

Eyewitness Authority Was Commissioned by Jesus

Jesus understood the eyewitness status of the Apostles. In fact, he commissioned them to grow the Kingdom on the basis of their eyewitness observations:

Which is precisely why apostle Paul, who aside from about 3 rather controversial references, is disqualified from the task of promoting the Gentile gospel, since he cares more about justifying his own theological speculations from the OT, than he cares about growing the Kingdom on the basis of eyewitnesses of Jesus' earthly ministry.  

If your pastor neglected Jesus' earthly ministry as often as Paul did, wouldn't you have a problem with that?

Luke 24:44-49

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Acts 1:6-8

So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

Eyewitness Authority Was Affirmed By the Gospel Authors

The authors of the Gospels proclaimed their authority as eyewitnesses (or as chroniclers of the eyewitnesses). While some skeptics have attempted to disassociate the Biblical statements from the Gospel authors to refute the authorship of the Gospels, the earliest believers embraced the traditional authorship of the eyewitnesses (and we can also make good circumstantial cases for the traditional authorship).

 No, you cannot make a good circumstantial case for traditional authorship.  You have been challenged by me, repeatedly, for the last couple of years, to make your best case within the context of a scholarly written debate.  Apparently you are too busy flying around the world appearing in 5 minute guest-spots on other peoples' tv and radio shows, to bother with little things like letting your readers see how well your stuff stands up to informed scrutiny, or letting them know the reasons why scholarly bible skeptics don't find your bells and whistles the least bit convincing.

But then again, you can market a book more effectively if you refuse to debate its merits publicly with informed critics.  And Lord knows, Christians are more apt to put their money into something that makes them feel good rather than something that challenges the basics of what they believe.

The Gospel authors (and their sources) repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses:

1 Peter 5:1

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…

Nowhere do the Petrine epistles claim that the author saw the risen Christ.

2 Peter 1:16-17

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

And since people never lie, we have no choice but accept as true the testimony of anybody who says they are telling the truth.

1 John 1:1-3

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us…

Nothing 1st John, 2nd John or 3rd John asserts the author saw the risen Christ.

John 21:24-25

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

 I would argue that the author's intentionally hiding himself in less than clear language (i.e., a reason why most scholars deny John's authorship of the gospel now bearing his name) justifies turning away from his writings. The author was clearly interested in something other than setting out the facts and clearly identifying himself as the testifying witness.  If you were on trial for murder and the prosecutor's witness was plagued by the same ambiguities of testimony and identity that attend the author of John, you'd be screaming your head off for the judge to excuse the witness and dismiss the case for lack of evidence.

Luke 1:1-4

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke was a liar because most Christian scholars agree he used substantial portions of Mark's gospel text...yet for sources he claims nothing other than eyewitness testimony, thus giving the false impression that all which he had to say originated in eyewitness testimony.  Lies are not restricted to factually false assertions, it is also lying to give a false impression.  Look it up in the dictionary.

Eyewitness Authority Was Confirmed By the First Believers

The early believers and Church Fathers accepted the Gospel accounts as eyewitness documents.

They also believed in lots of stupid crazy shit that impeaches their credibility so severely they'd be laughed off the witness stand.  Clement of Rome believed the fable of the phoenix bird resurrecting itself from its burned corpse to be true.  Irenaeus thought Jesus didn't die until he was in his 50's.  The basis on which these dudes drew conclusions about historical truth impeaches their general credibility in a way that cannot be mended by noting the places where they speak truthfully.

In fact, many Church fathers wrote about the Gospels. Papias, when describing the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, said, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.”

Even assuming Mark wrote Mark, most Christian scholars agree this was the earliest gospel, and that it ended at 16:8, some later hand, not Mark, was responsible for the resurrection narrative or the "long ending" (16:9-20).

If the Christian scholarly consensus be accurate, the earliest written gospel had nothing to say about a risen Christ appearing to anybody, and if the "man" the women meet inside the tomb (16:1-8) is actually an angel as inerrantists would require by comparison to Luke 24:4, then Mark is completing his story with an angelic proclamation of the good news that that Jesus has risen from the dead, and the "fear" of the women would then be reverential awe, and as such, ending at 16:8 constitutes ending on a positive note, not a negative one, leaving N.T. Wright and other frustrated fundamentalist scholars no proper motive to trifle that Mark would surely have written more.

At that point, the only people who have a problem with Mark not mentioning resurrection appearances are apologists who became desensitized to such a fitting quick ending of a gospel by constantly reading the other 3 gospels and their more richly embellished later additions with an eye toward "bible inerrancy".  But if you read Mark with the mindset of the early church to whom it was originally addressed, the lack of resurrection appearances constitutes nothing.  The angelic proclamation of Jesus as risen from the dead constitutes the best news.

In addition, Papias, Ireneaus, Origen and Jerome affirmed the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel by the tax collector described in the account, written for the Hebrews in his native dialect and translated as he was able.

No, not as "he" was able.  Papias says Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language and "everybody" interpreted them as THEY were able, so says inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg and others:

But whereas the internal evidence of the Greek text of Matthew strongly suggests dependence on Mark, early Christian traditions consistently attributed the oldest Gospel to Matthew. Yet they equally maintained consistently that Matthew wrote his Gospel in a Hebraic language (Hebrew or Aramaic). The oldest of these testimonies is ascribed to Papias (ca. A.D. 100–150), though preserved only as a quotation in Eusebius (H.E. 3.39.14–16), which is usually translated roughly as, “Matthew composed his Gospel in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated as they were able.”

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 39).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 In Book Three of his History of the Church (3.39.16), after recording Papias’ statement of the testimony of John the Elder concerning the Gospel of Mark, Eusebius adds this comment of Papias concerning Matthew: “Matthew for his part compiled the oracles in the Hebrew [Aramaic] dialect and every person translated them as he was able”

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page xliv). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Hence, Papias does not say Matthew did the translating or that he "translated as he was able", but...nice attempt at trying to make it appear that Matthew was himself responsible for the Greek version of his gospel.  

I can understand why you engaged in that bit of subterfuge...you've endured my prior argument that while there is abundant patristic testimony that Matthew wrote in Hebrew language, there is NONE saying Matthew wrote in Greek language, putting at a decisive disadvantage most Christian apologists who try to associate Matthew closer to our exclusively Greek manuscripts of that gospel by saying the tax-collector surely was bilingual and "could have" written a second original in Greek.

If that was the historical truth, we would have expected that because the early fathers are willing to tell the reader what language Matthew wrote in, they would have also said he wrote in Greek, had they any reason to think that was the historical truth.

They never do. In which case the historical testimony is that Matthew authored something in Hebrew, the gospel we know by that name comes to use exclusively from the Greek language manuscripts, and this significantly interferes with the apologist's desire to credit Matthew with the Greek version.

Eyewitness Authority Was Foundational to the Growth of the Church

It really shouldn’t surprise us that the authority of the Gospels was grounded in their eyewitness status. The eyewitness authority of the Apostles was key to the expansion of the early Church.

Which is precisely why apostle Paul is a heretic. Paul failed the "stay with Jesus from the beginning of his earthly ministry" criteria that Peter insisted on when finding it necessary to replaced the dead Judas with a replacement apostle # 12:

 16 "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
 17 "For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry."
 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
 24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:16-26 NAU)

 Peter would hardly have insisted on this criteria, had he agreed with Paul that true apostleship only requires a person to have 'seen' the risen Jesus.  And Peter's belief that somebody needed to replace Judas so as to complete the full number of 12 apostles appears to preempt any notion that he would approve of anybody outside the 12 from claiming apostolic status.  Why did Peter think apostle-candidates had to have been with Jesus since the days of John the Baptist, if that criteria wasn't required for a man to claim the title of apostle?

The apostles were unified in the manner in which they proclaimed Christ.

No, the risen Jesus defines the gospel as the things he had taught to the original 12 apostles, Matthew 28:20, something Matthew himself obviously took to mean the things Jesus said and did before the crucifixion.

Apostle Paul doesn't give two shits about the things Jesus said and did before the crucifixion, and aside from a few absurdly trifling references in his epistles to things that can also be found in written gospels, he clearly prioritized much more his own theological speculations and how these could be proven by quoting the Old Testament.  Paul was not a true apostle to the Gentiles, if we keep in mind the risen Christ's definition of the Gentile-gospel in Matthew 28:20.

They repeatedly identified themselves, first and foremost, as eyewitnesses:

Acts 2:23-24, 32

“This man (Jesus) was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him… God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”

Acts 3:15

“You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.”

Acts 4:20

“For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard”

Acts 4:33

With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 10:39-42

“We are witnesses of everything he (Jesus) did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen – by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead.”

There you go again, pretending that once you establish they were "eyewitnesses", its game over, when as a former detective, you should know perfectly well that establishing a person as an eyewitness doesn't do jack shit toward demonstrating the truth of their claims. 

But no, you just say "they were eyewitnesses" and expect the skeptics to bow the faces to the ground in wild wonder at your superior argumentation skills.

Wallace, do you think the trial is over with when the eyewitness has spoken?  If not, why do you act like the trial of Christianity is over with as soon as your alleged eyewitnesses have spoken?

Eyewitness Authority Was Used to Validate New Testament Writings

Even Paul understood the importance of eyewitness authority. He continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings.

Correct.  What he didn't do is show fulfillment of the criteria for apostleship that Peter demanded in Acts 1, to repeat:

 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22 NAU)

 Paul hadn't been with Jesus "beginning with the baptism of John...".  Paul fails the test...unless you wish to involve yourself in more scandal by agreeing with J. Vernon McGree and other fundamentalist preachers who insist Peter's replacing Judas in Acts 1 was wrong and disapproved by God?  Yet Luke doesn't express or imply that Peter was wrong, which he likely would have, had choosing Matthias as apostle # 12 been a sinful blunder.   And if the replacing of Judas this way occurred around 34 a.d. the time Jesus died, and if Luke wrote Acts around 62 a.d, then he is writing out this non-critical account about Peter nearly 30 years after the fact...and still not expressing or implying that Peter was wrong.  Says Inerrantist Polhill: 

1:20b–22 In vv. 21–22 Peter laid down the qualifications for Judas’s replacement. He had to be one who had witnessed the entire ministry of Jesus from the time of his baptism by John to the ascension. Above all he had to have witnessed the resurrection appearances. Here we have the basic understanding of the apostles’ role in Acts. They were primarily “witnesses” to Jesus, eyewitnesses who could share his teaching and confirm his resurrection and ascension. As such, the role of apostle was limited to the Twelve. It was a unique, irreplaceable office (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14). There could be no apostolic succession, since there were no further eyewitnesses to succeed them. 

Polhill, J. B. (2001, c1992). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 93).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Wallace continues:

Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

 Once again, Paul's definition of the gospel is

"how that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, 

and that he arose the third day according to the Scriptures..."

when in fact the risen Jesus' definition of the gospel required inclusion of all that Jesus had previously taught the disciples during the earthly ministry:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, 

baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; 

and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

 Everybody knows that a) Paul nearly NEVER does what Matthew does, and evangelizes Gentiles by quoting something Jesus actually said or did, and b) Acts suspiciously follows Paul's example, and in its many mentions of the disciples evangelizing others, it never has them referring to his words or deeds with anywhere near the detail that Matthew himself had understood Matthew 28:20...the apostles in Acts merely refer to Jesus having been crucified and risen again. 

Despite Jesus also having had a significant Gentile ministry and thus likely having had something to say about whether male Gentile followers need be circumcised or not, again, when the apostles deal with the Judaizers on that question in Acts 15, nowhere do they cite to anything Jesus said or did to resolve the controversy.

The Gospels were written as eyewitness accounts within the long and rich evidential tradition of the early Christian community. The early Church placed a high value on the evidence provided by Jesus and the authority of the apostles as eyewitnesses.

They also placed a high value on the NT apocryphal gospels...and you'd rather not talk about where these Christians got the idea that god approved of them writing more books after the 2nd century.

The Gospels were accepted and affirmed due largely to their status as eyewitness accounts.

Correction, due largely to the early church believing these were eyewitness accounts.