My reply to Hippolytus falsely ascribed as Josephus

In earlier versions of Josephus in English, a treatise "On Hades" is credited to Josephus (non-Christian Jew, onest century).

But scholars have recognized for the last few decades that this treatise is more likely from Hippolytus (Church Father, tuned century).

As a skeptic, I used this proof of false ascription to justify a skeptical view toward the authorship of other ancient workds, such as the gospels, in a comment posted to Doxological Life forum, see here.  The comment is awaiting moderation, so because it might be deleted, it is preserved here:

Reply to Jonathan Morrow's defense of Matthew's authorship

This is my reply to an article by Jonathan Morrow entitled

How Do We Know Matthew Was the Author of the Gospel of Matthew?

3 Reasons Why Matthew Was Not A Forgery of the Early Church

We live in a culture that has questions about the Bible. And that’s OK–because questions, if the goal is truth, will lead to a stronger faith.

But it could also be 'bad', as questions, where the goal is truth, can also lead to apostasy, such as becoming an atheist...or at least giving up on bible inerrancy and adopting a less extreme form of biblical inspiration.  And since questions logically impede one's decision for Christ, the failure to repent immediately upon hearing the gospel, was believed by the gospel authors to automatically signal the hearer's assured condemnation: 

 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn. 3:18 NAU)

 Apparently then, those who hold off accepting Jesus, because they have "questions" are defined in the bible as being under the present condemnation of God, thus implying their basis for questioning arises from their rebellious spirit and not an honest desire for knowledge.  As a fundamentealist yourself, you need to rework the part of your article that renders questions "ok" or "permissible".  Or become a liberal and deny the fantatical position espoused in John 3, supra.

I have seen this time and again. (But how we question the Bible is critically important)

But as Christians we also are called to respond to challenges which threaten to undercut our faith (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15).

 Those bible passages legitimately raise the objection as to why we should assume there is any Holy Spirit conviction going on when a Christian makes argument to defend the faith.  Crediting the convicting to the Holy Spirit here is about as gratuitous as the attorney who tells the jury "There's lots of evidence in favor of my client's innocence, but the only way you can appreciate its force is if the Holy Spirit opens your eyes to it."

And in case you haven’t noticed, the Bible is a BIG target so there are lots of challenges!

    Our goal is to say (and defend) what the Bible says—no more and no less.

Then this article is going beyond your stated goal, as you admit that the proposition that Matthew authored the gospel now bearing his name, is not technically made IN the bible.  So perhaps you could have spent God's precious time more efficiently by scrapping the defense of something that isn't even "biblical" and defending something that is biblical, but which skeptics viciously attack, such as Paul's credibility.

The Skeptical Challenge of the Authorship of the Gospels

Skeptics like to raise doubts and new “hidden” or “lost” information about the Gospels. Why? Because that is where all the information about Jesus is. And if you can undermine confidence in biblical authority there, then that weakens the overall authority of Christianity. Why? Because Christianity rises or falls with Jesus.

 On the contrary, like Mormonism and other obviously false cults, Christianity rises or falls based on how successfully the local upstarts can convince the laity that their claims about ancient historical events are true.  Given that most people's eyes turn into question marks when asked to spell "historiography", I'm not surprised that false claims about what happened in history are still capable of deceiving masses of people.  I suppose that if everybody had the level of knowledge about historical methodology as professional historians possess, the number of people who go around pushing the resurrection of Jesus as a true historical event would be similar to the number of professional historians who go around pushing the resurrection of Jesus as a true historical event.

Here’s the basic argument of the Bible skeptic meant to raise doubt:
    “Did you know that we don’t know who wrote the Gospel of Matthew? In fact, this Gospel is anonymous–(i.e., there is no formal claim to authorship within the document itself). The early church for political reasons wanted to exclude certain writings it didn’t like and so used an Apostle’s name (i.e., Matthew) to generate authority so this version of Christianity could win.”

 Then you are very close to misleading your readers, as you are merely refuting a very superficial type of gospel authorship skepticism.  It would be akin to me "refuting Christianity" by showing how stupid it is to allow people to play with live rattlesnakes in church.  That might refute those particular Christians, but would hardly operate to successfully broad-brush Christianity proper as false.  So when you refute the retarded skeptic whom you are quoting, you aren't refuting the serious scholarly skeptics, whose arguments you don't even get near touching in this article.

One of the new challenges in this generation is that arguments like this used to stay locked up in stuffy ivory towers. The effect was that everyday Christians never encountered them. Enter social media and youtube. Now these “sophisticated” arguments are available for the masses. And in our culture with a general distrust of authorities, conspiracy theories are then off and running.

How do we respond?

3 Reasons Why the Apostle Matthew Wrote the Gospel of Mathew

New Testament Scholars like Darrell Bock, D.A. Carson, and Michael Wilkins (among plenty of others) have done a lot of excellent work.

 So have other conservatives like Craig Blomberg, who specifies he is setting forth his case for Matthew's authorship "tentatively":

When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition…Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author…But again we present these conclusions tentatively. Little depends on them.

New American Commentary
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew, p. 43

 Given Blomberg's status as a world-authority on the gospels, and his status as a fundamentalist or conservative who accepts biblical inerrancy, and his prior books about the historical reliability of the gospels, his admitting to presenting his case for Matthean authorship "tentatively" would be alone sufficient to reasonably justify the skeptic to strike this gospel from the list of alleged resurrection "eyewitnesses".  If you were on trial for murder and the prosecutor's only evidence against you was an affidavit whose authorship had generated just as much scholarly disagreement as exists in the case of Matthew (i.e., there's no reliable way to tell which parts are from the eyewitness and which parts were added or changed around by later and anonymous redactors), and if the prosecutor admitted to the jury he was only "tentatively" arguing that the alleged eyewitness was the real author of the affidavit, wouldn't you ask the court to drop charges on the grounds that there is simply no way a reasonable jury could find an affidavit of such questionable "authorship" sufficient to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yeah, you would.

Here is just a short summary of the evidence for why we can be confident that Matthew, wrote the Gospel of Matthew, even though this Gospel is technically anonymous.

(1) First, regarding Matthew, “there is no patristic evidence that anyone else was ever proposed as the author.”

That's called the argument from the uniformity of tradition.  But many scholars insist that the only reason the tradition is uniform is because the later fathers were doing little more than repeating what 2nd century Papias said, which, if true, robs your argument of force, since in that case its not 10 ancient guys testifying to the same thing independently, it's one guy's opinion being cut and pasted by 9 other guys.  Guthrie:

 This evidence points to an unbroken tradition that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and advocates of any hypothesis which disagrees with this must suggest an adequate explanation of so consistent a tradition. The usual explanation is that later Church Fathers were merely reiterating Papias’ original mistake, or at least confusion, over what Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic.

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). New Testament introduction.
Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.). [The master reference collection].
Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

And indeed, if Papias is everything you think he is, you will never disconnect his influence from the later fathers who mention Matthew's authorship.  Would we not expect the later fathers to gain much of their knowledge about such issues from the fathers who preceded them?  

 Morrow continues:

 (2) Second, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Origen all affirm Matthean authorship.

But the fathers who mention the language Matthew wrote in, never say it was Greek, they always say it was Hebrew.  If it is historically true that Matthew authored a second original in Greek before he died, you would expect the later church fathers, who desire to tell the reader the language Matthew wrote in, would have no less desire to mention the Greek than the Hebrew, especially in their own day when the Hebrew was archaic and the Greek version of the gospel was mandatory for preaching.

(3) Third, the literary evidence reveals that Matthew was the most popular Gospel in the earliest period of the church and it was circulated widely.

 Lots of early Christian works enjoyed popularity despite authorship you'd say was non-apostolic authorship.  Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel to the Hebrews, etc.  

2 Objections to Matthew as Author

There are two common objections to his authorship.

Then you need to up your game.  I have more than 300 separate objections to Matthew's authorship.  I'm surprised that you completely avoid dealing with the obvious objection:  Papias' unreliability and the fact that his famous statement can just as easily be translated and understood in a way that significantly distances Matthew from the Greek gospel now bearing his name.

First, it is argued that Matthew, an apostle himself, would not have relied so heavily upon Mark, who was not an apostle, when composing his Gospel.

 And since you cannot find any 1st century examples of a true eyewitness author depending as heavily upon hearsay accounts as Matthew depended on Mark, this skeptical objection's force is not abated by anything you argue below.  Unless you can defeat Markan Priority and the Two-Source Hypothesis, your apostle's extensive quoting hearsay accounts to tell the world what he himself experienced, remains authentically unexpected.  If you saw a car accident along with your grandma, what would you tell the police when they asked you to make a staement?  Would you refer them to somebody else's edited version of your grandma's version?  Obviously not.  The fact that you saw it yourself means you either give your own version, or the cops become reasonable to be suspicious of your claim to be an eyewitness.  It really is that simple.

But since we have very good evidence that Peter stands behind Mark’s Gospel, Matthew would have had no issue utilizing the recorded testimony of Peter.

You are assuming Peter is "the" source behind Mark's gospel, when in fact even conservative Christian scholars think Mark's sources included far more than just the notes he allegedly took during Peter's sermons:

 Furthermore, the traditional units betray little evidence of being simply mental or written notes based on Peter’s preaching from his first–hand witness, a conclusion that impugns part of Papias’s testimony but does not necessarily disparage the veracity or the value of the traditional units.... Consequently, for the most part, one can only speak generally and tentatively when seeking to delineate between tradition and redaction. This conclusion does not dispute Mark’s use of traditional materials or the availability of multiple sources, but it does mean that one cannot precisely reconstruct or always identify the exact content of his source or sources.

Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page xxxiv-xxxv). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Furthermore, you haven't solved the problem:  there's not much difference between the problem of an alleged eyewitness author extensively using hearsay, and an alleged eyewitness author making extensive use of the hearsay version (Mark) of another's (Peter's) alleged eyewitness account.  Once again, if the author of Matthew was an eyewitness apostle, we would no more expect him to hide behind the hearsay version of another eyewitness's version, than we'd expect him to hide behind a purely hearsay version.  Matthew's extreme reliance on Mark remains inconsistent with what we'd reasonably expect of a real "eyewitness", especially if his memory recall was magically put into turbo-mode by "divine inspiration", another assumption about Matthean authorship that fundies insist on, and which they likewise cannot reasonably demonstrate.

The other common objection is that the Greek is too good to have been written by Matthew. However, Matthew was likely trilingual (Aramaic, Greek, and Latin) by growing up as a Jew in the region of Galilee, and as a tax collector he would have been required to know Greek well.

 None of my objections to Matthean authorship argue from the goodness of the Greek.  Dismissed.

Does it Matter if Matthew is the Author?

Yes.  The only resurrection testimonies that come down to us today from the NT in first-hand form would be (generously assuming traditional authorship) Matthew, John and Paul.  So the more reasonable skepticism of Matthew's apostolic authorship is, the more reasonable skeptics are to strike Matthew from this list of witnesses.  Reducing thecase for Jesus' resurrection from 3 witnesses to 2 witnesses is profoundly injurious, given that you need every last bit of evidence you can possibly get your hands on anyway.

I'm gonna change my life and start focusing on invisible issues of sophistry and theology, leading me into possibly psychologically harmful relations with "fundies", because the case for that religion draws from TWO "eyewitnesses" supplemented by a smattering of equally problematic hearsay? 

I don't think so.

Let me make one last point: Our goal is to say (and defend) what the Bible says—no more and no less. In the case of Paul writing a letter that bears his name, we are compelled to defend his authorship as a matter of biblical integrity. However, when it comes to the four Gospels, there is no one specifically to defend (i.e., because it is technically anonymous).

 Which is another argument against apostolic authorship of Matthew.  The example from Paul and most other NT authors is that the author is willing to say IN the document what his name is.  So the Matthew author's unwillingness to do so is not subject to only one reasonable interpretation (i.e., maybe his audience already knew who he was, he didn't need to repeat the obvious.  Well gee, Paul's churches knew who he was, but by divine inspiration still felt compelled to "state the obvious" anyway).  It is just as reasonable to conjecture that the apostolic signature doesn't appear in Matthew because the author wasn't an apostle.  Or Matthew wrote it, but like lukewarm Christians today, might have wished to help the church in some way, but was reticent to just dive headfirst into the role...reasonably suggesting he was something less than "amazingly transformed", thus impeaching to some degree his statements about Jesus rising from the dead.

You also fail to mention that among the late and contradictory accounts of Matthew's death, several give no hint that it was anything more than an uneventful natural death, no implication he was "martyred"...also suggesting he became disenchanted with the whole business, and, while remaining a part of the movement, stopped being the Jesus-freak he once was, also hurting the credibility of his resurrection testimony.

Finally, the Matthew-author quotes no more speech from the risen Jesus than what would take about 20 seconds to recite orally.  If Acts 1:3 is true and this risen Jesus taught Matthew and the other 10 disciples things concerning the kingdom of God over a period of 40 days, that sounds like the risen Christ had far more to say than 20 seconds worth of speech...even if the actual speeches happened less often than 8 hours per day for each of the 40 days.  So the shockingly short quote of the risen Jesus in Matthew either suggests the author's knowledge of the risen Christ's sayings was far less than what we'd expect for "Matthew", or, the risen Christ didn't say much more than what Matthew records, and Acts 1:3 is exaggerating historical reality.

I say that the Matthew-author's obviously intense desire to quote the pre-crucifixion Jesus' sayings at length is reasonably expected to manifest itself also in the case of the post-crucifixion Jesus' sayings.  The author's belabored obsession with the pre-crucifixion Christ contrasts sharply with "his" far shorter account of the post-crucifixion Jesus, reasonably justifying skepticism, either in that the resurrection narrative wasn't authored by the same obsessed person who wrote the bulk of the gospel, or it was the same apostolic author, but he lost much of the zeal for his faith before authoring the resurrection chapter, and that's why he appears to care far more to document the pre-crucifixion than the post-crucifixion Jesus.

The reasonableness of those skeptical theories cannot be overthrown merely because you can always dream up some sort of logically possible theory that favors bible inerrancy or tradition.  You either show your theory to be more reasonable than mine, or you lose in your attempt to "defeat" the skeptical view.  

If you think my skeptical views can be reasonable, I wouldn't really hit you this hard.  But since you appear to be a fundamentalist, which thus implies you think any and all skeptical theories of gospel authorship are devilish attacks upon the wordagawd, you cannot afford to allow for theories opposite to yours to be the least bit reasonable...all that would do is involve you in helping the devil mock the Christian faith!.  

So you either demonstrate my theories to be unreasonable, or you fail to demonstrate that my theories are unreasonable.  You don't demonstrate a skeptical theory to be unreasonable by merely pointing out that your own opposite theory is reasonable.  Reasonableness can often be equally present in two conflicting theories, such as when reasonable educated mature respectable members of the jury hear the exact same evidence and are unable to agree on the verdict.  Only a fool would pretend that this is always because there is some mentally defective or dishonest person in the jury that is being unreasonable.  Evidence is not usually so perfect in quality and quantity as that.

If I cannot demonstrate your theory to be unreasonable merely because my own contrary theory is reasonable, then fairness dictates that YOU aren't showing my theory to be unreasonable merely because your own contrary theory is reasonable.  I'm keenly aware of the epistemological "shortcuts" fundies typically employ in their clever efforts to make it seem the only reasonable theory is the theory favoring biblical inerrancy/reliability. 

As a thought experiment, let’s say it was somehow discovered that Andrew wrote what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew in the 1st century? Would that mean that there is an error in the Bible? Actually, no, because no claim of authorship was technically made in this document (the same logic would hold for the book of Hebrews)

 Then you are admitting there are more important issues that you could have devoted God's precious time to defending, than who authored the gospel now bearing Matthew's name.

So the bottom line? We have good reason to believe that Matthew is the author of this Gospel.

And you've now been given several justifications for saying skepticism of Matthew's authorship is reasonable.

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.

Matthew as resurrection witness: did Irenaeus quote, or corroborate, Papias?

Generally, the less independent corroboration, the weaker the case for traditional authorship of Matthew, but the more independent corroboration, the stronger such a case would be (barring discussion of the credibility of the sources for the independent corroboration).

2nd century church Father Irenaeus asserts that Matthew authored a gospel. 
 

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies,Book 3, ch. 1

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Irenaeus elsewhere admits that he also got things not just from Papias, but specifically from the same Papias-authored 5-volume “Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord” that Eusebius depended on for crediting Papias with the earliest post-apostolic statement of Matthew’s authorship.  See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33.

Therefore, it remains a possibility that Irenaeus’ statement about Matthew authoring a gospel constitutes nothing more than him simply repeating what Papias said.   If that is the case, Irenaeus wouldn't qualify as an independent corroboration, for the same reason that witness B is not independently corroborating the testimony of witness A, if all witness B is doing is depending on witness A's statement and giving it her own interpretation.

For obvious reasons, the more conservative or fundamentalist the Christian, the more they will view the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew's authorship, since they are already low on resurrection eyewitness testimony, they cannot afford for any of their alleged witnesses to call in sick the day of trial.

Scholar Donald Guthrie, whose "NT Introduction" is "widely acclaimed" and "a benchmark evangelical work", says Irenaeus here was depending on Papias to assert Matthew authored a gospel:

This testimony is clearly identical with Papias’ statement only if λογία is interpreted as the gospel. Since Irenaeus was acquainted with Papias’ work it may reasonably be assumed that he is here giving his own interpretation of Papias’ statement…

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). “Matthew, Authorship”, New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.).

[The master reference collection]. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

The question to be answered in this blog is;  Is Irenaeus corroborating, or merely repeating, what Papias said?

If he was merely repeating, then he does not qualify as independent corroboration of Papias' statement, and as such, the case for Matthew's authorship is a bit weaker than it might have been.

Luke 2:52, either Jesus isn't God, or God can increase in wisdom

Luke 2:52 makes a controversial statement about Jesus, which I say logically forbids the possibility that he could have been both human and God at the same time.

46 Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.

 47 And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.

 48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You."

 49 And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?"

 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

 51 And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

 52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Lk. 2:46-52 NAU)

How could Jesus, who IS God (supposedly), "increase" in wisdom?


Apologists will say v. 52 is only referring to Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.

But "nature" is what a thing really is, it's essential properties, as opposed to what it merely appears to be.  From the Oxford dictionary:

The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

So if Jesus had two natures, BOTH of them would have to be implicated in anything the bible asserts him to have been, said or done.  There is no logical possibility for a person to act in a way that doesn't implicate their nature.

So the only way to rescue Luke from denying Jesus' divinity here is to insist, contrary to all reason, that Luke ascribed to the erroneous belief that Jesus could do things contrary to one of his natures (like acting in his earlier years in a way that involved less wisdom than he'd have acted with in his later years, when his nature as God during his early years would require that he always spoke/acted during said early years with the fullest amount of wisdom logically possible for God.)

Yes, the bible elsewhere teaches that Jesus is God, but using a teaching in one part of the bible to dictate what interpretative options are and aren't available for some other bible verse, presupposes the truth of the doctrine of full biblical inerrancy.  But since bible inerrancy has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other interpretation-tools such as "grammar" and "context" have (inerrancy is denied by most Christian scholars too, not just skeptics), I have reasonable justification to refuse to exalt inerrancy in my mind to the status of "interpretation-tool".

Since I have reasonable justification to reject inerrancy as a governing heremeneutic, I have reasonable justification to not be worried about my interpretation of Luke 2:52 causing it to contradict something else in the bible.  Something more than this must be shown before I will be morally or intellectually obligated to renounce my interpretation.  If such is not shown, then the fact that my interpretation contradicts something else in the bible, will only be interesting to inerrantist-Christians, thus showing the subjective nature of such a rebuttal.

For all these reasons, Luke's statement that Jesus increased in wisdom can only mean either a) Jesus wasn't God since God cannot increase in wisdom, or b) the divine nature of Jesus increased in wisdom. 

However, Christians who interpret Genesis 6:6-7 literally (i.e, God really does sometimes regret one of his own decisions), can safely assert that Jesus, as God, can increase in wisdom.  Their interpretation of Genesis 6 is probably correct, there is no grammatical or contextual justification for the "anthropomorphic" interpretation, only a worry that it needs to be rendered non-literal so it won't contradict other bible verses asserting God being all-knowing.  Take a look at Exodus 32:9-14  for another example of God being imperfect and needing the wisdom of humans.

Matthew as Resurrection Witness: Can skepticism of Papias' testimony be justified?

The question for you is at the end of this post :)

Among the bits of external evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel now attributed to him, are the comment of 2nd century Bishop Papias, that Matthew authored a gospel.  Papias made that comment in a work entitled "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord", now lost to us except as bits of it are quoted in surviving works by later church fathers.  One father who quoted Papias was Eusebius of Caesarea, 4th century author of the monumental "Church History", that is required reading in all seminaries and bible colleges.


The following quote from Papias draws from "Church History" and the immediate context is included:

15 “This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.  

Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, chapter 39

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series

Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg admits in the inerrantist-driven "New American Commentary" that most scholars dismiss Papias' remarks:

Largely because canonical Matthew does not betray very much evidence of having been translated literally from a Semitic tongue, most modern scholarship is inclined to discount the value of Papias’s testimony however it is interpreted.

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

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 40).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

So while the majority opinion of scholars doesn't automatically make said opinion true, the fact that a majority of scholars hold the opinion makes it very difficult to accuse those who hold said opinion of being irrational or unreasonable.

The "Word Biblical Commentary" admits the tantalizingly brief nature of the Papias-quotation has caused scholars no end of disagreement about what exactly Papias meant:

The tantalizing statement of Papias from the first quarter of the second century (Körtner and Schoedel accept a date of 110; Yarbrough even earlier) is at once the earliest, most important, and most bewildering piece of early information we have concerning the origin of material associated with the name of the Apostle Matthew.

Hagner, D. A. (2002). “The Papias Tradition concerning Matthew”,

Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13.

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

"The text of Papias is open to many questions."

"Matthew", Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968];

Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). 

The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Finally, Clifton Black, Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton, says

...Papias's testimony is undeniably one of the most important.  It is also one of the most problematic and tantalizing.  if not exasperating.  As we shall see. Eusebius' quotations from Papias are obscure extracts, almost every aspect of which is enveloped in an interpretive controversy that may ultimately prove beyond the capacity of scholars to resolve.  In the period from 1960 to 1981 alone, some three thousand five hundred monographs and two hundred scholarly articles were devoted, partially and sometimes wholly, to Papias, and the torrent of research shows no signs of abating.  For all of that, as noted by a respected patristic scholar who has contributed to this research, "the fragments of Papias still continue to be looked at for more than they can possibly give."

C.C Black,  “Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter”, page 82

Although scholars debate everything about this Papias-quote, the purpose of this blog post is limited to getting your reply to the simple question:  Do you believe Eusebius' quotation of Papias on Matthew's authorship, combined with the immediate context Eusebius surrounds the quote with, provide enough information there to enable us to determine, to any degree of reasonable certainty, what exactly Papias meant with his comments about Matthew?

I say no, and therefore, the theory that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection, takes a direct hit.

 Conservative Christian textual scholar Daniel Wallace agrees that gaining conclusive certainty on what Papias meant is impossible, and further holds that, regardless, Papias likely wasn't referring to a gospel:

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence.

If you conservative Christians who are spiritually alive cannot even agree on what Papias meant, nor even whether it is possible to confidently determine what he meant, aren't you being a just a bit unreasonable in expecting spiritually dead people (who have even less ability to discern truth) to figure out which Christian view on Papias is correct?

I therefore conclude that atheists have plenty of rational warrant to dismiss Papias' comments about Matthew as creating more questions than answers.  Nothing about Papias' input can be pushed so far as to morally or intellectually obligate the non-Christian to think Papias constitutes reliable evidence.