My challenge to Alisa Childers: justifying skepticism without falsifying Christianity

 Here is my reply to a video by Christian apologist Alisa Childers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyzqrM3tB8

(wow, within about 20 minutes, Childers deleted this comment!)

Here is the full text in case that post is deleted (it was, about 20 minutes after I posted it).

Barry Jones

0 seconds ago

Even assuming Christianity is everything Childers thinks it is, one of the most powerful justifications for gospel-skepticism is the inability of any Christian to make a prima facie case for their claim that the bible "applies to us today". First, even assuming the OT and NT were complete as 66 books and viewed as canonical by Christians of the mid-first century, the fact that 2,000 years have passed, and the fact that today's Christian scholars disagree with each other over nearly every statement in the NT, means the question of why anybody thinks the bible "applies to us today" is legitimate and needs to be definitively answered by those who insist the bible "applies to us today". THEY are making the claim, they have no right to expect others to believe it until the prima facie case is made. Just like Protestants have the right to disregard the Apocrypha given their reasonable belief that Catholics have failed to make a prima facie case that it is canonical. Second, exactly what in the bible "applies to us today" is furiously debated within Christianity, particularly between dispensationalists, and between them and those who espouse covenant theology. If spiritually alive people disagree so much on that question, they are fools to "expect" spiritually dead unbelievers to figure out which Christian view is the "right" one. Third, the question of how and whether the bible "applies to us today" cannot be answered with solely biblical authority, which means the conservative or fundamentalist answer to that question should not be treated as if it was as equally correct as anything stated in the NT. The survival of the bible between the first century and today was due to reasons outside the biblical text itself. Mostly anonymous strangers from history made decisions about what was to be in a NT "canon", the records we have from Eusebius and others indicate there was much dispute at the early stages, and today's Christians, despite lacking the first clue as to who these strangers were, still insist that such strangers surely were "inspired by God" to adopt the canonical opinions that resulted in the current 27 book NT canon. It doesn't matter if that canonical theory is true, you cannot DEMONSTRATE it to be true, and the less you "demonstrate" such a thing, the more reasonable it is to say the formation of the canon had less to do with "god" and more to do with doctrinal and political controversies by people who had zero divine infallibility. You can't evne prove the slightly identifiable biblical authors were infallible in anything they wrote, how much worse for anonymous strangers before Eusebius who made decisions about what should be in the canon? Fourth, then there is the other problem of why Christians today view those strangers as "inspired by God" to "recognize" the 27 book NT canon. If those strangers were inspired by God to make such decisions, why don't Christians view those "discoveries" to be equally as infallible and binding as they view biblical text itself, which they also claim is "inspired by God"? Is there something in the bible that specifies that when God inspires later generations of Christians, that inspiration will be less intense than the inspiration God allegedly bestowed upon the original biblical authors? No. So the problem is that today's apologist wants us to believe God "guided" these strangers between the 1st and 3rd centuries, in their decisions concerning what books should be in a "canon", but god did NOT guide them with that level of infallibility that he allegedly did for the biblical authors. Skeptics observe that there was no evidence that God "guided" any such people in the first place, so for the skeptic, these trifles about God bestowing different levels of inspiration on different people involved in the bible's preservation unto today, is nothing but idle speculation. The evidence in favor of the Christian viewpoint is nowhere near as strong or convincing as to render skepticism about the matter "unreasonable". Fifth, when the skeptic refuses to listen to any Christian unless they are inspired by God to the point of inerrancy, today's apologists will immediately balk because they know perfectly well that there are no Christians today who possess that intense level of divine guidance. But we have to ask: the inability of today's Christian to provide the requested goods the way the allegedly divinely inspired apostles did, doesn't mean the request is unreasonable: If heresy and spiritual deception carry all of the horrific eternal consequences the bible seems to teach, the skeptic is very reasonable to insist that the risks of getting involved in this Christianity-business are so great, the only reasonable position is to limit one's education abour the bible to just those Christian teachers who possess infallibility...which is perfectly harmonious with the biblical model, in which the allegedly divinely inspired apostles were the proper "teachers". Us skeptics are thus perfectly reasonable to disregard any "teachings" from anybody except those who possess the same level of divine guidance that Childers thinks the original biblical authors had. Our daily decisions (to drive a car, to eat a meal without checking for poison, etc) do not carry the horrific and eternal consequences that the bible seems to attach to Christians who espoused false theology (Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 1:6-9). Most Christians cannot avoid agreeing with me on the point. The Calvinists don't want you to learn from Arminian teachers, and Arminians don't want you to learn from Calvinists. Yes, apparently, we DO have to worry about the consequences of being misled by imperfect "teachers". It hardly needs to be pointed out that no Christian today can make any showing that they possess that level of divine guidance they speculate was possessed by the human biblical authors, therefore, the skeptic is just as reasonable to ignore the teachings of an imperfect Christian today, no less than the skeptic is reasonable to refrain from betting his life savings after getting advice from an imperfect prophet. WE are taking that risk, it is OUR soul that stands to lose and lose big...the Christian has no right to pretend that we "should" be willing to risk our eternal fate by trying to learn from Christian teachers who lack this critical attribute of infallibility. Thus the skeptical demand for infallible Christian teachers remains reasonable despite the Christians' obvious inability to supply them. Sixth and finally, it doesn't matter if Jesus really rose from the dead. That does NOT automatically "vindicate" Jesus. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 warns that the Hebrews were not to follow the teachings of a prophet even if he accomplished a genuinely supernatural miracle. The right test was whether the prophet spoke in harmony with the given Mosaic Law. So applying the same principle today, we do not ask whether Jesus rose from the dead, because even if he did, that could not reasonably foreclose the question of whether he taught heresy. We ask whether his teachings were in harmony with Mosaic law. They were not, especially if we read him, as Christians themselves do, through the lens of Paul's law-free gospel. The notion that Jesus' death "fulfilled" the law and changed anything is merely a claim of Paul and some of Jesus' early followers. By no means is that claim beyond dispute. And in light of Matthew 28:20, it would appear that regardless of how Matthew interpreted the theological consequences of Jesus' death in "fulfilling the law", the risen Christ nevertheless required that all future Gentile converts obey everything he previously taught the apostles. What did Jesus previously teach the apostles? Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-20 becomes reasonably legalistic when interpreted within its own context (Jesus requires actual personal righteousness on the part of each individual person, see vv. 21 ff, the context in no way shape or form suggests "imputed" or "imparted" righteousness). There is no generally accepted rule of hermeneutics requiring non-Christians to adopt only those interpretations of the bible that harmonize with each other. Not even most Christian scholars adopt biblical inerrancy. In a nutshell, that's a very powerful justification for skepticism toward Christianity. That's all it is. It does not prove Christianity false. As testified by numerous deadlocked juries, you can be reasonable to adopt a view that is contrary to the truth, if in fact what's "true" is extremely difficult to ascertain.

Show less

My reply to Alisa Childer's interview of J. Warner Wallace

At Childers' blog I posted the following:

To my knowledge, Wallace, for all of his promotion of the idea that we can discover truth in the gospels if we guide our investigation into them with the same evidentiary rules American courts use, never explains how the gospels would pass the provenance-authentication requirement in the ancient documents test (Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(8)(B), i.e., the documents were located in a place where, if authentic, [they] would likely be.)  

Our earliest copies of the gospels have unknown provenance outside general remarks about how they were found in some monastery or obtained from a chain of mostly unknown persons or otherwise procured through illegal antiquities sales. 

If Wallace knows what everybody else knows, that the provenance of the gospels is utterly unknown and even conservative Christian scholars disagree about where they originated, then he must either concede that the gospels can never pass muster in a court of law because they would be deemed inadmissible (which would invalidate his attempts to use other rules of evidence in investigating the gospels)...or...he should argue that there are aspects of the American courts' evidentiary rules that he thinks do more to hide the truth than enable its discovery. 

I explain why the gospels fail the ancient documents rule at my blog which has plenty of posts refuting articles Wallace has posted within the last year....https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/10/are-gospels-all-just-hearsay-yes-thanks.html 

Wallace also knows about my blog, but has shown no interest in interacting with my many well-founded criticisms of his arguments, his populist sensationalizing and his ceaseless relentless promotion of his imperfect commentaries on biblical matters (a sin Frank Turek and many other modern apologists are equally guilty of).

How much of the resurrection testimony in the NT comes down to us today in first-hand form?

Apologists are forever talking about now the NT gives us "many" eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection.

But a testimony is not "eyewitness" unless its author claims to have seen the alleged event herself.  Merely saying "Jesus rose from the dead" is not sufficient, because even a non-eyewitness can make that claim.  We have to be able to ask "how do you know Jesus rose from the dead", and the source has to use words to the effect that the testifying party saw Jesus alive after he died (i.e., "saw" is the "eye" in "eyewitness").

With that qualification in mind, how many NT authors claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus?

Generously forgetting gospel authorship problems, I count three:  Matthew, John and Paul:

16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. (Matt. 28:16-17 NAU)

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. (Jn. 21:24 NAU)

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Cor. 9:1 NAU)

 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:8 NAU)

That is, the NT does not provide us with any more than 3 first-hand testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus.

Remember, its not "eyewitness testimony" unless the author is claiming to have seen the alleged event herself.

While some hearsay from Luke might be based on eyewitness accounts, it is more important at this early juncture to keep the truly first-hand reports separate from the hearsay.

What do you think?  Did I miss anything?

Matthew could be discounted on the grounds that he didn't include his name with the testimony, which is suspicious to say the least.  He also draws most of his material from non-eyewitness Mark, and it doesn't matter how many scenarios apologists can conjure up to show otherwise, those who are real eyewitnesses usually don't confine what they have to say, to a non-eyewitness's version (Mark) of an alleged other eyewitness's words (Peter).  Matthew's situation will continue to be abnormal regardless.

 Paul could be discounted because the most explicit statements in the NT asserting that Paul encountered the resurrected Jesus, don't actually go far enough to actually say he saw Jesus.  The story of Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus is told three times in Acts, chapters 9, 22 and 26, and at no time does the text express or imply that Paul physically saw this Jesus, while the inability of the other men to see this Jesus (9:7) helps take the "eye" out of Paul being an "eyewitness".  J. Warner Wallace banned me from his Facebook page after I pointed out that Paul wasn't an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, then quickly conjured up an article arguing that Paul could still be a legitimate witness due to what he heard, even if he didn't actually see this Jesus.  Wallace would hardly have done that had he believed something in the NT made clear that Paul physically saw the resurrected Jesus.  Paul can also be discounted because he admits he would give a false impression of his true beliefs to the crowd he happened to be with, if he thought doing so would cause him to gain more converts.

John could be discounted because the Muratorian Fragment (which conservatives like to date early because its list of NT books basically matches that of the modern Protestant canon) says John only deigned to write after pressure from the other apostles, and when he did, he wanted the other apostles to fast for three days, and then relate to each other the visions each would have (as the basis for his planned writing), but afterward, apostle Andrew received a revelation that John should write everything from his own memory and then the other apostles should review it (i.e., review it for accuracy, and/or to add to it).

So there are obvious and substantial problems with a) saying there are many eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus, and b) the credibility of the three cases that under generous conditions, might qualify to be eyewitness accounts.

Matthew as resurrection witness: "...but some doubted"

Only in Matthew do we find the unexpected remark that when the 11 apostles saw the risen Jesus, some of them "doubted":

 16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:16-18 NAU)

 "doubtful" in the Greek is distazo, and it means to waver or doubt.

In what sense did Matthew mean that some of the 11 disciples "doubted"?

First, the "some were doubtful" is distinguished from the "worshipped him" by the word "but".  "But" intends to introduce an exception.  The sense here is that some of the 11 did NOT worship Jesus at the time the others did.

Second, Matthew's only other use of distazo is in 14:31, where Peter's faith began to fail him as he walked on the water to meet Jesus, and Jesus characterizes the state of his mind as "why did you doubt (distazo)?".

 28 Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
 29 And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt (Matt. 14:28-31 NAU)

Third, how believable is it that the disciples could run around every day with Jesus, watching him perform genuinely supernatural miracles for three years to confirm the accuracy of his prediction that he would die and rise from the dead, and then "doubt" when beholding their resurrected lord?  Exactly how many times can you dip into the "they-just-didn't-get-it" well, before it runs dry?

10 not-so-tough questions to atheists: My answers to J. Warner Wallace

 Bob Seidensticker posted 10 "tough" questions for atheists over at patheos.com

Here is my point-by-point answer:

No one can demand a proof that God does (or doesn’t) exist, 

 That's not biblical.  Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that story characters in the bible were given plenty of "proof" for God's existence, such as the parting of the Red Sea,

  22 The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. (Exod. 14:22 NAU)

 Elijah's bout with the prophets at Mt. Carmel:

   37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that You, O LORD, are God, and that You have turned their heart back again."
 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. (1 Ki. 18:37-38 NAU)

  Isaiah inviting King Ahaz to demand a sign from God:

 10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
 11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
 (Isa. 7:10-11 NAU)

 ------------------------

but where does the evidence point? Following the evidence without bias is the best we can hope to do.

Without trying to sound pretentious, being without bias is an impossible state of mind.  The best we can hope to do is suppress our biases to the point that they do not taint our evaluation of the evidence.  But at the same time, some biases are good.  Your bias against the possibility of levitation by mental power alone will serve you well when you need to decide whether to believe such a report from a stranger on a bus. 

A number of apologists defend Christianity with the thinking of a courtroom lawyer or detective.

 Which is not a good idea since the canonical gospel manuscripts we still have, come from unknown provenance, and thus fail element # 3 of the admissibility test of the "ancient documents rule"

 One of these is J. Warner Wallace. In his essay “The Christian Worldview is the Best Explanation”* he gives ten tough questions to which he claims Christianity has the better answer. Let’s take a look.
1. How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
Our universe had a beginning, but what caused it? Why is there something instead of nothing?

  Then apparently he doesn't approach Christian defense like a courtroom lawyer, since what he said justifies the hearer to respond "Objection, compound question", and "Objection, states facts not in evidence."
Wallace is blindly presuming the universe had a beginning and touts the Big Bang.  I am one of those atheists who believe the universe is infinite in size and scope, and the process of starts beginning and ending stretches back into the infinite past.  The Big Bang is easily falsifiable on its merits.  It has the Andromeda Galaxy during a full u-turn, and the BB needs the utterly ad hoc and unproven "dark matter" to keep it alive.

 2. Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
The constants that govern our universe appear to be remarkably fine-tuned to allow life. What explains that if not a supernatural intelligence?

 I disagree that fine-tuning exists.  It's no coincidence that we only find oxygen-based life forms living where there's oxygen.  Damp attics were not "fine-tuned" for mold, mold is just the natural result, given the physical conditions, if an attic in normal conditions remains damp for several days.

 If someone is closed minded to the evidence, I agree that that’s a problem. However, I’m happy to follow the evidence where it leads. 

 Christians are forbidden by the bible to do anything with oppositions of science "falsely so-called", beyond "avoiding" them.  1st Timothy 6:20 destroys millions of tons of Christian works in the last 2,000 years that attempted to deal with such oppositions of science.  All creationists who busy themselves "refuting evolution" are violating their own bible.

 3. How Did Life Originate?

  Since God is infinitely complex, Occam's Razor would require that any naturalistic explanation is going to be infinitely more likely true than "god-did-it".  That entails that supernatural explanations for origin of life must be demonstrated to be infinitely better than naturalistic explanations, before they can rationally obligate the hearer. 

Is Genesis 3 just a fable?

Alisa Childers correctly points out how disastrous it would be to Christianity, if Genesis 3 was mere fable.

So let's start with the obvious:

When I was a kid, and read about ancient tales in other cultures that made reference to talking animals, I automatically assumed that because we never see animals talking that this today, these tales are surely mere fictions.

Was I unreasonable to draw such a conclusion upon such basis?

Answering Alisa Childers on the Muratorian Fragment

Sometimes, Christians forget that consequences have actions.

For example, all conservative Christians love to date the Muratorian Fragment ("MF") to the early 2nd century, since that means its list of canonical works, mostly matching the modern Protestant canon, is so early that it can be said to have apostolic roots.

I don't know if Alisa Childers "forgot" any such thing as she blogged in support of an early date for the MF, perhaps not, but most Christians don't realize that before the MF author moves from John to Acts, he gives a version of how John's gospel was composed, a version that most conservatives would rather see struck from history. Here it is, in context, from Metzger's translation:

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]:

Notice what else you are early-dating when you early-date the MF:

1. you are early-dating the tradition that apostle John wanted his gospel to be the result of him and the other apostles discussing visions they'd have after fasting for three days.
2. you are early dating the tradition that before John's gospel was published, it was "reviewed" by the other apostles.

The consequences that follow from both of these traditions make it more difficult for today's conservative apologists to argue that the material in John's gospel is simple authentic eyewitness recollection:

Under tradition # 1, the fact that John first thought his gospel should be the result of him and the apostles discussing visions with each other, raises problematic questions about John's intent in writing a gospel:  He was willing to present visionary material as if it was simply eyewitness testimony in written form (and given this, it may very well be that this is exactly what happened, see John's exclusive statement in 16:7, 14 about how further information about Jesus will be disclosed by the Holy Spirit after Jesus goes away).  So if theory # 2 is true, and John wrote it, well, the guy who wrote it was the kind of guy who saw no problems in characterizing vision-based information as eyewitness-based information.  How's that for a solid boost in apologetic potential?

Under tradition # 2, the fact that the apostles "reviewed" it would not make sense unless they were given the right to modify or correct it.  But this raises several concerns:  Why would any of the apostles believe God wanted them to modify John's composition, assuming as true the conservative view that these apostles would have thought John to have written inerrantly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Or maybe the historical facts given here in the MF falsify the modern conservative notion that John was incapable of error while he was composing his gospel?  What fool "reviews" a composition that is already guaranteed to be without error?  Maybe the apostles were reviewing in the sense of their learning from John, things about Jesus which they never previously knew?  How can "review" make coherent sense here without doing violence to the doctrine of inerrancy?

Donald Guthrie's "New Testament introduction" is standard fare in conservative seminaries and bible colleges, yet notice his pessimism toward getting any useful results from analyzing 2nd-century sources speaking to authorship of John's gospel:

The problem of the authorship of this gospel has been so widely and so thoroughly discussed that it is not easy to express with any conciseness all the ramifications of the different hypotheses which have been proposed.

…It is always difficult to assess the evidence of the second-century Church Fathers on the New Testament books, for a critic’s estimate will be invariably influenced by his general presuppositions. Thus some will place more emphasis than others on negative evidence, rather than positive, and others will be inclined to give credence only to the first of a sequence of witnesses, dismissing the rest as mere echoes of the first and therefore weakening the whole cumulative testimony. Although a completely unprejudiced approach is probably not possible, an attempt will be made here to give a brief survey of the facts.3

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.). [The master reference collection].

Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

Guthrie's NT Introduction does not discuss the MF's testimony to John's gospel.

The Word Biblical Commentary draws a conclusion from the MF that makes reasonably confident assessment of the eyewitness value of John's gospel impossible:

John’s Gospel is thus represented as a joint production of a number of the apostles, with John as their spokesman.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary :

John. Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxvii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

If the content of the gospel of John draws from more apostles than John, then how are we to figure out which sections of John drew from which apostles, so that we can do proper historiography and evaluate the credibility of the individual contributors?  As most Christians know, most of the original apostles are disregarded by the NT after the time Jesus is alleged to have risen from the dead.  Therefore, if the MF is correct and, say, Bartholomew contributed in any way when "reviewing" John's gospel, what part did he review, how do we know, and what historical evidence about Bartholomew would assist us in ascertaining his ability or willingness to stick to just the facts?

Or could it be argued that because the MF says John wanted his gospel to be based on visions, this esoteric attitude was likely shared by the other apostles, so that when they "review", they are just as willing to make additions on the basis of divine revelation, as they are on the basis of their own eyewitness memories?  How does this historical possibility change the "reliable gospels" calculus?

The Word Biblical Commentary asserts that this part of the MF is legendary:

The Muratorian Canon has reproduced sheer legend in suggesting that a group of the original Apostles, with Andrew in particular, shared with the apostle John in the writing of the Fourth Gospel; the motive for this is clearly to reinforce the authority of the Gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of it—an early example of the tendency to confuse apostolic authority with apostolic authorship.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary: John.

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

I find the "reinforce the authority of the gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of it" excuse to be unpersuasive, since the early patristic testimony to Matthew and Mark does no such thing.  Then again, nobody said that the early church could only err in a uniformly consistent way.

Consequences flow from the conservatives who say the MF's story of John's origin is legendary.  Inerrantists often forbid the bible to have even a single error because they think if they admit one genuine error, the floodgates will open and they will have to admit they can't be sure there aren't other errors too.  If that reasoning is valid, then why doesn't the legendary "how it happened" stuff in the MF justify suspicion toward the allegedly factual "list of canonical books" stuff?  If there's one error, then all is lost, amen?

Could it be that the MF author got the canonical list right, but not the history of the canonical books?  Yes, technically that could be the case, but how does that benefit us more than 1500 years after the fact, who are limited to just the MF and our historical methods, and our need to judge credibility by known acts and statements?

The WBC rehabilitates this "legend" by offering the following as a possibly correct explanation for the "we" in John 21:24:

 (iii) The writer and others closely linked to him. So, e.g., Schlatter: “The speaker stands in this ‘we’ in the first place, but he knows that he is not alone, but sees himself in a greater circle of such as share his knowledge with him” (376). This accords with the famous passage in the Muratorian Canon, which states that John wrote the Fourth Gospel at the entreaties of his fellow disciples and bishops, but not until he had asked them to pray with him concerning the matter; then “it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name with the recognition of all.”

For kicks, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John's gospel says John dictated and Papias wrote.
Eusebius said Papias did not live early enough to be a contemporary of the apostles:

" But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends^."

Did Eusebius say this merely because he didn't like Papias' chiliasm?  If so, how many other early church fathers likewise allowed their theological prejudices to cause them to make false statements about Christian history?  Was Eusebius' prejudice here typical, or exceptional?
 
In my opinion, the attempt of conservatives to harvest wheat from the MF while rejecting the chaff, is fraught with peril on every side,. and the more objective procedure would be to leave the MF alone as nothing more than a historical curiosity.  

But the consequence of avoiding the use the MF is, one less ancient historical source in favor of apostolic authorship of John's gospel.