Cold Case Christianity: Using the law to destroy J. Warner Wallace's case for Mark's reliability

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

Cold Case Christianity: 

Good Reasons to Believe Peter Is the Source of Mark’s Gospel

Posted: 24 Aug 2018 01:00 AM PDT

The authorship of Mark’s Gospel is of great importance to those of us making a case for the reliability of the New Testament. Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. How did Mark get his information about Jesus?

Well Mr. Wallace:  Mark's not being an eyewitness would make his own gospel "hearsay" in any court of law.  Since you are so big on the use-American-court-rules-of-evidence-on-the-gospels gimmick, you might begin by explaining how you figure the jury could ever be allowed to see Mark's gospel:

First, the gospels are 2,000 years old, thus requiring analysis of the "ancient documents" rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 803 (16): (of course, the rule was never meant to apply to documents that are 2,000 years old, but Wallace is stuck with that stupid application of the law since he wants to evaluate the gospels using modern American jurisprudence):

  (16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.

 Second, the evidence rules tell us how "authenticity" is to be established, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8):

(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:

(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;

(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and

(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.

Third, Mark doesn't pass the "condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity" criteria.  

 The requirement that the document be free of suspicion relates not to the content of the document, but rather to whether the document is what it purports to be, and the issue falls within the trial court's discretion. United States v. Firishchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Kalymon, 541 F.3d 624, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2008). "[T]he mere recitation of the contents of documents does not authenticate them or provide for their admissibility." Firishchak, 468 F.3d at 1021.

From Mathin v. Kerry, 782 F. 3d 804 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2015

From Eusebius, Church History, book 6, ch. 14:

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 Marks 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.

If the person who is the purported source behind Mark refused to encourage the writing, then it doesn't matter why; from historian's perspective the notion that Peter thought Mark got some of the Petrine preaching wrong must remain forever among the possibilities.  The bar Mark must meet is not "reasonable", but "no suspicion".  Unless fundamentalists suddenly discover that Eusebius isn't as reliable as they wished (a position that itself opens doors to justified gospel authorship skepticism that they wish to remain closed), then Clement's remark here passes the historical criteria of embarrassment, and thus has greater claim to reliable history than any laudatory statement about Mark. 

Fourth, Mark fails the "was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be" criteria, since provenance of the manuscripts earliest Mark comes from (Vaticanus, Siniaticus) are virtually unknown, and Mark's alleged traveling all over from Rome to Egypt would require the ridiculous result that this criteria is satisfied as long as a copy of Mark was found somewhere within a 3,000 mile radius! 

Furthermore, the tradition is that Mark gave the original to the church in Rome (a city having nothing to do with Siniaticus or Vaticanus).  Siniaticus was found in Saint Catherine's Monastery which is in Egypt, 1,500 miles away from Rome.  Vaticanus obviously comes from the Vatican library, but that only means that's where is was discovered.  But the provenance and early history of the codex is uncertain, see Aland, Kurt; Barbara Aland (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 109 (from wikipedia).  See also same here.


Fifth, even if Mark passed the ancient documents rule, the fact that it is allegedly Mark quoting Peter means it is still classic hearsay, and if no exception allowing it can be found, it remains inadmissible hearsay. Contrary to popular belief, demonstrating the authenticity of the document doesn't end the analysis, the document must still conform with the rules allowing hearsay, or the document must remain inadmissible:

Even if a document qualifies as ancient under Rule 803(16), other hearsay exceptions must be used to render each individual layer of hearsay admissible. This interpretation best reconciles the underlying justifications of Rule 803(16) with the limitations of Rule 805."). See also New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 888 F.2d 646, 650 (10th Cir. 1989) (upholding exclusion of statements reported in newspaper article as inadmissible hearsay). As previously stated, the newspaper articles fall within the exception for ancient documents. However, as to the statements of other declarants (apart from the author), Ms. Murphy has not shown that any other hearsay exception applies. Accordingly, the Motion in Limine is granted, in part, with regard to portions of the newspaper articles attributable to declarants other than the author.

Murphy v. City of Tulsa, Dist. Court, ND Oklahoma 2018

Worse, Christian scholars generally agree that Mark's gospel content includes more than merely "what Peter preached", which therefore screws up any hope Wallace had to pretend that only Peter is being represented in Mark's gospel. From my prior article:

Without doubt a close examination of Mark’s material will show that the evangelist did not simply write his Gospel based on his notes or memory of Peter’s teachings. The amazing similarity in language, style, and form of the Synoptic tradition between the Markan and non-Markan materials of Matthew and Luke (cf. John’s Gospel) hardly suggests that Mark’s materials were shaped by one man, be he either Peter or Mark.

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. 

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

Even if Mark passed the ancient documents rule and all hearsay objections, what exactly in it that goes back to Mark, to Peter, to somebody's idea of a combination of both, or to otherwise unknown sources, is impossible to determine. 

And while I espouse Markan priority, the Christians who think Mark copied from Matthew (Matthean priority) make it even more difficult to pinpoint what in Mark's gospel is from Mark, from Peter, from Matthew, or from other sources.

It is not for nothing that I call Wallace's use of modern rules of evidence on the gospels, a "sales gimmick".   That's truly all that it is.  He is capitalizing on Christians who don't know jack shit about historiography or legal rules of evidence, and upon Christians who are utterly addicted to their computer.

Wallace continues:

Why should we consider his information to be reliable? There are several good reasons to believe Peter is the trustworthy source of information for Mark, beginning with the historical attributions of the early Church Fathers who affirm the relationship Mark and Peter had in the 1st Century.

Trustworthy?  Peter denied Christ several times after having allegedly seen him do real miracles to amazed crowds for three years, then he became a Judaizer (Galatians 2:12-14, "...how is is that you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?")

Beyond this, however, there are additional evidences within Mark’s text supporting the claim Peter (Mark’s mentor in Rome) is the source for Mark’s information.

Doesn't matter, if the argument were that easy, you wouldn't find legitimate Christian scholars like Guelich, supra, scoffing at the notion that Peter is Mark's only source.

I’ve described the evidential case in much more detail in Cold-Case Christianity, but this brief summary may be helpful:

The Writing Style Is Consistent With Mark’s Background

The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a writing style and literary syntax exposing the author’s first language as something other than Greek. In fact, the writing style seems to indicate the author’s first language was probably a Semitic language such as Aramaic. This would be consistent with the idea Mark, a Palestinian Jew (who most likely spoke Aramaic) was the author of the Gospel. In addition to this, the Gospel of Mark includes a number of vivid and tangential details unnecessary to the narrative, but consistent with observations of an eyewitness to the events. This would indicate the author had access to an eyewitness such as Peter.

But there is also evidence against Peter's being a source is Mark's resurrection appearance narrative. 

First, Acts 1:1-3 has a risen Christ appearing to the apostles IN JERUSALEM over a period of 40 days, teaching things concerning the kingdom of God:

NAU  Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.   (Acts 1:1-3 NAU)

 Second, nothing in Mark's resurrection appearance narrative expresses or implies any such thing as 40 days of resurrection appearances in Jerusalem:

 9 Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
 10 She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.
 11 When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.
 12 After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.
 13 They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either.
 14 Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.
 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
 16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
 17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
 19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed . [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. (Mk. 16:9-20 NAU)

Had Peter experienced the 40-day Jerusalem appearances of Christ, we'd expect both that he'd relay the details to Mark, and that Mark would find the risen Christ's teachings on the kingdom of heaven equally as important, if not more so, than the same teachings Christ gave before the crucifixion.

"Impeachment by omission" is a recognized means of challenging a witness's credibility. "A statement from which there has been omitted a material assertion that would normally have been made and which is presently testified to may be considered a prior inconsistent statement." State v. Provet, 133 N.J.Super. 432, 437, 337 A.2d 374 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 68 N.J. 174, 343 A.2d 462 (1975); see also Silva, supra, 131 N.J. at 444-45, 621 A.2d 17; State v. Marks, 201 N.J.Super. 514, 531-32, 493 A.2d 596 (App. Div.1985), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 393, 508 A.2d 253 (1986). This principle is widely accepted. Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 239, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2129, 65 L.Ed.2d 86, 95 (1980) ("Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted."); Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 34 (7th 784*784 ed. 2013) ("[I]f the prior statement omits a material fact presently testified to and it would have been natural to mention that fact in the prior statement, the statement is sufficiently inconsistent."); 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 1042 (Chadbourn rev. 1970) ("A failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the non-existence of the fact.")

 from Manata v. Pereira, 93 A. 3d 774, 783-4- NJ: Appellate Div. 2014

Wallace continues:

The Outline of the Gospel Is Consistent With Peter’s Outline

Papias maintained the Gospel of Mark was simply a collection of Peter’s discourses (or his preaching) as this information was received and recalled by Mark. If we examine the typical preaching style of Peter in the Book of Acts (1:21-22 and Acts 10:37-41 for example) we see Peter always limited his preaching to the public life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel omits the private birth narrative and other details of Jesus’ life described in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew. Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist and ends with the resurrection and ascension, paralleling the public preaching of Peter as we see it summarized in the Book of Acts.

Unfortunately, none of the apostles in Acts merely quote Jesus verbatim and recall his specific miracles, strongly suggesting that Peter's preaching in Rome was akin to his preaching in Jerusalem.  He might make general references to to what Jesus said and did, but nothing nearly so verbatim as what we find in Mark's gospel.  You cannot argue that Peter didn't need to be specific about the details with the Jews that he witnessed to in Acts, who knew all about Jesus' public ministry, because Paul's preaching the Gentiles is also recorded in Acts, yet is equally bereft of verbatim quotes of Jesus (Acts 20:35 being merely an exception that proves the rule), consistent with the way he argues his actual points; Paul infamously hardly ever bases his teachings on things Jesus actually said or did, aside from dying for sin and rising from the dead (1st Cor 11:23-25 and 1st Timothy 5:18 are mere exceptions proving the rule).  Mark is at best an embellishment of the more generalized message the apostles originally preached.

The Omissions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s Influence

There are many details in the Gospel of Mark consistent with Peter’s special input and influence, including omissions related to events involving Peter. How can Mark be a memoir of Peter if, in fact, the book contains so many omissions of events involving Peter specifically? It’s important to evaluate the entire catalogue of omissions pertaining to Peter to understand the answer here. The vast majority of these omissions involve incidents in which Peter did or said something rash or embarrassing. It’s not surprising these details were omitted by the author who wanted to protect Peter’s standing in the Christian community. Mark was quite discreet in his retelling of the narrative (other Gospel writers who were present at the time do, however, provide details of Peters ‘indiscretions’ in their own accounts). Here are some examples of Petrine Omissions grounded in an effort to minimize embarrassment to Peter (see Cold-Case Christianity for a more detailed explanation of the events summarized here):

 Thank you for honestly admitting that the gospel authors sometimes attempted to spin an apostle to be more trustworthy than he was, by selectively omitting the more embarrassing episodes.  Whoever wrote Mark's gospel had more faith in the public's negative reaction, than in the power of the Holy Spirit to move through historical truth.

Since more than enough has been done here to destroy Wallace's bullshit legal case for Mark's authenticity, there is no need to reply to the rest of his article.

Snip...

There is sufficient cumulative, circumstantial evidence to conclude Mark did, in fact, form his Gospel from the teaching and preaching of the Apostle Peter. If this is the case, Mark’s Gospel was written within the lifetime of Mark (and likely within the lifetime of Peter). If the Gospel of Mark was written this early, it would have undergone the scrutiny of those who were actually present and could have exposed Mark as a liar:

2 Peter 1:16

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty

 We have no idea under what circumstances Mark wrote, so cocky confidence about how Mark would have been subject to criticism and passed with flying colors is overstatement, something Christians apparently need to stay faithful, since the Holy Spirit wouldn't need to overstate the case like that to properly do his job of keeping Christians confident in the gospel.

Regardless, the quotation from Eusebius that Peter knew about, but refused to encourage, Mark's literary effort, is reasonably interpreted as Peter's belief that Mark was not reliable, which destroys Wallace's last point.

No, I do not wake up in the middle of the night in frightened shivers, wondering "what if atheism is wrong and hell is real!?"

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.