My virgin-birth rebuttal at Patheos

A Catholic blogger wrote a piece on the questionable historicity of the nativity stories.  See here.

I posted the following reply:

barry • a few seconds from nowHold on, this is waiting to be approved by messyinspirations.First, Since the apostles would have been babies at best when the events of Jesus' virgin birth and childhood took place, and because nobody ever dared allege that Mary or Joseph wrote any of the 4 canonical gospels, an assumption of apostolic authorship of the gospels necessarily reduces the nativity stories to hearsay. It doesn't matter if we grant the assumption that Matthew and Luke conducted interviews with Mary and Joseph. The person giving us the facts is not somebody with personal first-hand knowledge, therefore, the nativity stories cannot be anything other than "hearsay".
 Second, skeptics cannot be considered unreasonable for adopting a position also adopted by most Christian scholars; that Mark is the earliest gospel. If the other three gospels came later, then it is reasonable to infer that the reason only two of the later gospels mention the virgin birth is because they are embellishing the earlier story. We naturally expect that between the earliest and later forms of the same story, the latter is more likely the one to contain the embellishments. That simple common sense is not going to disappear merely because the necessary ambiguity and non-absolute nature of the historical evidence enables a fundamentalist apologist to conjure up trifling excuses all day long about why Mark and everybody believed in the virgin birth and simply "didn't wish to repeat it".
 Third, nobody seriously claims that Jesus was referring to actual historical events when giving his parables. So it is also reasonable to deduce that the gospel authors found Jesus' use of fiction-to-support-theology useful and good when applied elsewhere, so that getting people to believe in high Christology was more important than whether the stories intended to facilitate such belief were actually true. It is not true that a stranger will necessarily kidnap your kids...but then again, you create far more good and family safety/cohesion if you just teach your small child 'stranger-danger'. The higher good of family safety trumps the idiot who trifles that "stranger-danger" isn't necessarily true. For that reason, it is reasonable to assume that the gospel authors would have found getting a person to believe the way the authors did, far more important than whether the "facts" that such faith was predicted upon were actually true. That's rather stupid under modern western notions of truth, but we are talking 1st century Palestine, where people 14 years after the fact will swear they saw heaven despite continuing to be unable to tell whether their flying into the sky was physical or spiritual (2nd Cor. 12:1-4). Fundamentalists probably think the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was written by Moses in 1400 b.c.
 Fourth, fundamentalists have a nasty habit of automatically concluding that if they can think of any non-contradictory "how-it-could-have-been" bare possibility scenario in favor the historicity of the nativity stories, then presto, that bare possibility necessarily and conclusively trumps any possibility set forth by a skeptic. That is inaccurate and irrational: In 20 years of attacking the gospels, I've seen plenty of fundamentalist defenses of the nativity stories. I think TWO of them attempted to show that historicity was more likely than embellishment. once again, nobody wins a historiography debate by merely showing the way they believe does not involve logical contradiction or is founded upon mere possibilities. The person who wins the historical debate is the person who shows that their theory is more likely to be true than the theory they disagree with. Sure, its possible Mark knew of and approved of the virgin birth stories but chose for his own reasons to avoid mentioning them, but that's only a possibility. You will have to show that this is more likely than the skeptical theory that says Mark, with his goal to prove Jesus was the divine son of God, would never "choose to excude" nativity stories that support his intended theme often more powerfully than the pericopes he DID choose to record.
 Fifth, I have formed particularized rebuttals to the particular arguments of Licona, Habermas and W.C.Craig in favor of the resurrection, and if it be reasonable to conclude Jesus did not rise from the dead, then under apostle Paul's logic, we are also reasonable to conclude Christians are false witnesses who are still in their sins (1st Cor. 15:15-17), which, makes it reasonable to deduce that Christians are then under YHWH's death penalty even if we granted that they did genuinely supernatural miracles (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Since YHWH doesn't think the doing of a miracle automatically infuses the theology taught therein with divine approval, then it doesn't matter if we grant the miracle of Jesus' virgin birth for the sake of argument, we'd still have to ask whether Jesus taught in harmony with the Law. 2,000 years of Jewish opposition to Christianity might have a tendency to render skeptics "reasonable" even if not "infallible" in attacking Christianity.
 Sixth, fundamentalists don't merely claim skeptics are "wrong", they also say we are "fools" or "unreasonable" to deny the historicity of the virgin birth narratives. That being the case, if we wish to disprove their contention, we don't have to prove that the skeptical position is "correct", we only have to prove that the skeptical position is "reasonable". If the fundies can become 'reasonable' by merely positing possibilities, they must extend that luxury to skeptics and concede that skeptical possibilities render the skeptic reasonable.
 Seventh, the biggest problem here is the stupid fundamentalist who is always casting bible inerrancy in terms of accuracy. That is, since Jesus was either virgin born or he wasn't, we should expect the historical evidence to show that he was, or show that he wasn't. This is stupid: Jesus was born 2,000 years ago, and the records of such birth are similarly 1,950 years old. Any historian will tell you that you don't answer questions of ancient history in terms of accuracy, you only answer them in terms of probability. How LIKELY is it that the nativity stories are true? How LIKELY is it that the nativity stories are embellishment?
 Eighth, if any fundamentalist thinks Matthew was written to both Christian and non-Christian Jews, that gives you a pretty good idea of how anti-intellectual Matthew was: he expected non-Christian Jews to be persuaded Jesus was virgin born...because of a story...a story that, given Matthew's likely 60 a.d. date of publication, is thus a story that comes to those non-Christian Jews 30 years after the fact. Think legends take at least a full generation to materialize? Think again, read Acts 21:18-24. And most Christian scholars including Licona and Craig Evans admit that Matthew and John engaged in "artistry" and either invented history or placed historical events in a time that they didn't actually occur, so that there is plenty of scholarly justification to say that the gospel authors' concerns for accuracy were not quite as fanatical as those of modern fundamentalists.

Synoptic Problem # 1: Matthew's dishonest fabrication of Christ-sayings

One of the synoptic parallels seems to naturally resist attempts by inerrantists to explain it away as a case of an author's right to exclude something:

Mark 8

Matthew 16

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them,   "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."  29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."     30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples,  "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered,  "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

----------------------------------------------------------

The context for each is identical, so this is certainly not Jesus talking similarly on two separate occasions, this is one singular event being reported by two different authors.

What's more likely?  That Mark knew Peter uttered the longer form of the confession, but knowingly "chose to abbreviate it?  Or that Mark's version of the confession is shorter because the author didn't know about any longer version?  

What is more likely?  Mark knew that Jesus said all that extra stuff about Peter, but "chose to exclude" such profoundly important authority-establishing Christ-sayings, for his own "authorial purpose"?  or

Mark doesn't relate as much as Matthew because Mark had no reason to think Jesus said the things now confined to Matthew's version?

Such a debate involves probability judgments on how close Mark was to Peter, and whether Peter, as a leader, would likely or not likely have considered such a glowing personal endorsement from God-incarnate important enough to preserve and articulate in his preaching tours.

Dr. William Barrick wrote an article in which he tried to explain this as a case of Matthew accurately reporting, and Mark choosing for his own reasons to create a more "abbreviated" account.  See here.

I sent Dr. Barrick the following through his website contact form, which included my email address:

I read your explanation of the synoptic differences on Peter's confession at https://drbarrick.org/the-synoptic-gospels-inerrancy-what-did-peter-say/ 

Since the more expanded version in Matthew supports Peter's authority, and since the apostolic church was divided on Peter's authority (1st Cor. 1:12) can you really say it is "unreasonable" to insist that Mark would never have knowingly excluded such words from his account...and therefore...Mark is not excluding anything, Matthew is guilty of putting in Jesus' mouth words he never spoke?
 I accept Markan priority, and isn't it true that embellishments are more likely to show up in the later retellings, than in the original?
 While my theory might attack inerrancy or gospel reliability, I can't sympathize with that concern since I deny both doctrines.  I deny them because
 a) I feel certain biblical errors are real and not merely apparent; 

b) the bible doesn't teach the "only in the originals" inerrancy-caveat of the CSBI statement, so the specter of the bible extending inspiration or inerrancy to "copies" (i.e., the bible contradicting the CSBI) looms large;  and 

c) the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars accuse Matthew of "toning down" some expressions he copied from Mark...something he would hardly do if he felt Mark's gospel was "inerrant".

------------------------------------

I will wait to see if Dr. Barrick replies.  For now, I'm not seeing any academic or objective justification for the inerrantist to automatically assume that Mark knowingly excluded otherwise important theology merely because such is "possible".

I don't claim the inerrantist theories are impossible, so you are not "defeating" any opposing hypothesis merely because your own theory is "possible".

You are also not "defeating" any opposing hypothesis merely because you can drum up a few supporting evidences for your theory.  You'd have to extend that luxury to anybody whose counter-theory had some supporting evidences, and then you'd endure the illogical outcome that both parties "won" that debate.

What actually happened in ancient history is not determined by mere possibilities, otherwise, both sides of every historical debate would 'win', which is illogical.

What actually happened in ancient history is determined by probabilities (i.e., whose theory to explain the evidence is more probable, or, can both theories boast of equal likelihood?).

That being the case, the Christian apologist is not "defeating" my above-stated theory by simply pointing out that his own counter-theory can be "supported".  Very few positions on biblical matters are without at least some support. No fool thinks all scholars win every biblical debate.

You need to show that your inerrantist-theory is more likely to be true than my skeptical theory that says Matthew invented the longer version.

While I expect apologists to be honest and engage with me in argument, I also expect James Patrick Holding to deceive his followers into thinking a 2 minute cartoon video that feeds his narcissistic lust will conclusively dispose of this allegation of error in the bible.  Yes, that is his idea of "rebuttal".

 "You are wrong, here's the reasons, you could not possibly have any significant rejoinder, so, discussion closed to everybody except those whose comments I choose not to delete."

Doesn't your heart just race with fear at the very thought of disagreeing with such a fearless warrior?  I can barely type, I'm shaking so bad.  LOL

Always remember:  it wouldn't even matter if you the skeptic conceded the miracle of Jesus' resurrection for the sake of argument:  the god of the Christians does not think a person's working a genuinely supernatural miracle automatically justifies their theology, a worker of real miracles can STILL be condemned by God for promoting false theology:

 1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'
 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
 4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.
 5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.
 (Deut. 13:1-5 NAU)

So, obviously, the bible-god disagrees with modern loud-mouth Christian apologists like Frank Turek who insist that if Jesus truly rose from the dead, this miracle automatically proves he is the true Son of God.

Most inerrantists are blind to the obvious meaning of 2nd Timothy 3:16

Roger Pearse recently gave some insightful comments about the history of the KJV here.

His last comment made me think of my own basic rebuttal to biblical inerrancy.  He said:

This claim is not what Christians believe about the scripture.  It is merely a strawman, designed to require something that does not exist and never did exist.  Jesus himself talked about the rolls of the law as inspired; but these were written by men.  However divine inspiration works, it can certainly cope with spelling mistakes, human error, and all the business of living in an imperfect world.

This reminded me of my infallible argument refuting the "inerrant only in the originals" belief of modern-day inerrantists, and I posted the following in reply to Pearse.  The comments did not show up after I clicked "reply" to we'll have to wait and see whether this was because he already blocked me, or if he elects to approve of comments before allowing them to post.  Here's what I wrote:

Your last comment implicates a powerful rebuttal to the modern inerrantist movement represented in Geisler/Archer and the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy. 

Most modern inerrantists sidestep the obvious errors in the bible by imposing a standard that is not reasonably checkable:  the bible is inerrant "only in the originals".  This amounts to little more than mooting the significance of the obvious copyist errors by fiat.

But in the bible, whenever the authors speak about the divine inspiration of some writing, they never express or imply that they mean "only in the originals".

Therefore, their unqualified statements about scriptural inspiration are most likely talking about the nature of the thing that their contemporaries can actually read and touch...the copies...even if they are also talking about the "originals".  That is, the most natural reading of passages like 2nd Timothy 3:16 is that the copies are inspired too.  In context Paul is talking about the scriptures Timothy knew in childhood or in the 1st century (v. 15).  Obviously, Timothy did not know "the originals".  No scholar thinks the pieces of parchment and papyrus that Moses and Isaiah actually set their pens to, survived into the 1st century.  The only "scripture" he knew were the copies.  Those copies are what Paul is according "inspiration" to, even if he "also" means the originals. 

The point is that the sense of copy-inspiration (i.e., the sense that would put the final nail in the coffin of modern-day inerrancy theory found in the CSBI statement) cannot be reasonably excluded from Paul's wording.

If then inerrantists continue standing by their other premise that "inspiration = inerrancy", then because the biblical authors taught that the copies were "inspired", the biblical authors thus also necessarily taught that the copies were "inerrant".  The very fact that the inerrantists themselves clearly deny inerrancy to the copies ensures that whatever change they make to avoid the implications of this argument, that change will imply that they have been missing the forest for the trees for decades. 

Since they cannot deny the reasonableness of the interpretation, what are they going to do?

Say Paul got it wrong?
Admit the CSBI was framed more out of a desire to avoid the obvious than by concern to be "biblical"?
Admit that the biblical "truth" they've been dogmatic about for decades, was the "wrong interpretation"?

The issue is not whether modern inerrantists can be reasonable to believe they way they do.  Maybe they can.  The issue is rather whether the bible skeptic's above-cited argument against biblical inerrancy is "reasonable".  If not, why not?  How does the "the-first-century-copies-were-inspired-too" interpretation violate anything in the grammar or context of 2nd Timothy 3:16?

But if the skeptical interpretation of Paul here is reasonable, it would appear today's inerrantists are (in light of their own commitment to "truth") under a moral compulsion to stop characterizing the skeptical affirmation of error in the bible as "absurd" or "false", to stop pretending biblical inerrancy is "obviously true" or stop being so obsessed about defending it...and to allow that the skeptical view, supra, is at least no less reasonable than their own position on the subject.

If skeptics can be reasonable to argue Paul did not mean "only in the originals", then they are reasonable to say he accorded inspiration to the copies too, in this case 1st century copies. And since no scholar thinks the 1st century copies of the scriptures were inerrant, we are reasonable to turn away from modern-day inerrantists until they interpret Paul correctly.

One homosexual inerrantist once trifled that the "only in the originals" caveat need not be "biblical", but he is obviously stupid:  the Christian's view of inerrancy needs to at least correctly reflect what Paul meant in 2nd Timothy 3:16, and they aren't doing this when they exclude copy-inspiration from Paul's comments.

Therefore, the modern-day inerrantist's "only in the originals" caveat is not merely some viewpoint of possibly arguable merit that falls within acceptable hermeneutical practice.  The "only in the originals" caveat is positively contrary to Paul's beliefs because it is neither expressed nor implied in his wording, therefore, to insert the caveat into his wording anyway is nothing less than changing what he really meant to avoid falling into the same pit that Paul himself dug.  Good luck giving an interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16 that seriously insists the specific "only in the originals" nuance is what Paul meant.

Some trifling inerrantist will insist that this present rebuttal doesn't hurt them because they don't adopt the version of inerrancy espoused by Geisler/Archer and CSBI they adopt a more modern form that avoids the pitfalls of the traditionalist notion.

But whether we skeptics are reasonable to view as false the "new inerrancy" , is another subject appropriate to a future blog post.  There certainly are a lot of stupid inerrantists out there who adopt the traditional CSBI form of inerrancy, so the atheist goal of "refuting the Christian view" has obviously been achieved in large part by refuting what millions of Christains and their capable scholars have believed for centuries.

I've made obviously significant headway by bulldozing a major Christian position to the side of the road.  You're next.

Cold Case Christianity: THIS is why missing data in the gospels justifies skepticism

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

Cold Case Christianity:

How Can I Trust the Gospel Accounts When Some Are Missing Important Details? 

Posted: 20 Mar 2019 01:56 AM PDT 

A visitor to ColdCaseChristianity.com wrote recently to express her concerns and growing doubts about Christianity.

Or maybe you are concerned about a criticism I wrote against one of your beliefs, and you are just pretending the concern originated in what this unnamed Christian said.  We must consider all options.  You are a sinner, your honesty is far from deserving of presumption.

Raised in the Church, she finds herself questioning the reliability of the Gospel authors because some of them failed to mention important events in the life and ministry of Jesus.

 Congrats to atheist bible critics like me, because such a concern likely wouldn't originate from within her faith or her church.  It was likely a skeptic who motivated her to grant legitimacy to the argument from silence.

Why does only one Gospel writer mention the Raising of Lazarus?

Given that John has no problems lying about what Jesus said and did, the other 3 likely didn't mention it because it never happened.

Why does only one writer mention the dead people who rose from the grave at Jesus’ crucifixion?

Christian apologist and inerrantist Dr. Mike Licona credits this to the Matthew-author's desire to mix history with fiction.



See here.

You can hardly blame skeptics for agreeing with him. Unfortunately, Matthew also explains the empty tomb in spite of the guards, with a dramatic tale of an angel with appearance of lightning frighting the guards into comatose state (28:4).  That easily qualifies as "apocalyptic imagery" no less than the zombie resurrection. Gee, when did the average evangelical fundamentalist Christian ever learn in church that just because the gospels report something in a manner that looks like historical reporting, doesn't necessarily mean it was actual history?  NEVER.

There are many examples of singular, seemingly important events mentioned by only one of the four Gospel authors. Shouldn’t all of the alleged eyewitnesses have included these events, and doesn’t the absence of information in a particular Gospel cast doubt on whether or not the event actually occurred?

 Since you are so quick to use American law to analyze the reliability of the gospels, you'll be disappointed to know that American law allows the jury to interpret a witness's omission or silence to be the logical equivalent of a positive denial:

"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

That is cut and pasted from my more in-depth article that shows how the basics of American jurisprudence render the gospels unreliable and inadmissible.  See here. 

Wallace continues:

My experience working with eyewitnesses may help you think clearly about these issues and objections. You can trust the Gospel eyewitness accounts, even though some are missing important details:

 Then you are already contradicting modern laws of evidence.  Wallace...you are not allowed to automatically assume that any possible "how-it-could-have-been" scenario you conjure up to explain an eyewitness's silence, is the only reasonable way to interpret said silence.  We the jury shall make our own decision whether the witness was silent because she thought it false, or merely "chose to exclude" it for her own unknown reasons.

Eyewitness Accounts Vary Based on Their Scope

When I interview an eyewitness, I am very careful to set the parameter for the testimony before I begin.

Something you obviously cannot do with ancient written testimony whose authors have been dead for 2,000 years.

I usually frame the interview by saying something like, “Please tell me everything you saw from the moment the robber came in the bank, to the moment he left.”

A request you don't know the gospel authors were intending or not intending to fulfill , in their motive to write.  I'd really like to ask Matthew "please tell me everything the risen Jesus told you during those 40 days of appearances which Acts 1:3 says you experienced, not merely the 15 second snippet you limited yourself to in your last chapter."

Unfortunately, such a request for greater quantity is useless in light of the death of the gospel authors.

If you believe in the power of prayer, why don't you ever tell your followers to ask God to fill out for them the factual details they wish the gospel authors would have included?  Or do we all recognize that nothing fails quite like prayer?  If the gospels are divinely inspired, such a prayer to God would be perfectly reasonable.  Yet you've never dared embark on such a futile undertaking as that.

I make sure to set the constraints the same way for each and every witness.

 And since you do nothing of the kind when restricted to documents authored by currently dead witnesses, as is the case with the gospels, all you are doing here is sounding intellectual without actually being intellectual.

Without these parameters, the resulting testimony would vary wildly from person to person.

So since you cannot impose those parameters on the 4 gospel authors, you are required to conclude their testimony varies widely from author to author for reasons not controlled for by your "parameters".

Some would include details prior to or after the robbery, some would include only the highlights, and some would omit major elements in the event.

 That's also because the eyewitnesses didn't all see the same thing or hear the same sounds.  That being the case, why do you automatically reject conservative Christian scholar Dr. Craig Evans' skeptical explanation for the John 11 raising of Lazarus being omitted by the Synoptics (Evans denies that we'd hear Jesus talking the way John's gospel presents, if we cold go back in time and listen to Jesus for ourselves, see here)?  How the fuck would you know whether the people who authored the Synoptics did or didn't know about that event?

But the skeptical solution (i.e., that assuming eyewitness gospel authorship, Matthew would surely have seen Jesus raise Lazarus, and with his desire to use apocalyptic fiction in his resurrection narrative anyway (Matthew 27:53, the zombie-resurrection story Licona denies the historicity of), and in light of the fact that Matthew alone has the risen Christ require his apostles teach the Gentiles "all" of the pre-Cross teachings (28:20), Matthew is especially likely to have mentioned the raising of Lazarus, were this a truely "historical" event).  So his omission reasonably implies he either never knew about it (suggesting it never happened), or he thought the story false (goodbye bible inerrancy). We are not limited to just picking an explanation that supports gospel reliability. 

If I want to be able to compare the testimony of two or three witnesses later, I’m going to have to make sure they begin with the same scope and framework in mind.

Something you cannot control for when dealing with documents authored by witnesses who have been dead for 2,000 years.

Furthermore, I object to your constant resort to "witness" and "eyewitness" in this analysis, as there are numerous cogent arguments that the gospels are at best a tangled pastiche of late Christian tradition and a few things Jesus really did say.  John Meier, Christian scholar, author of the comprehensive 4-volume "Jesus: A Marginal Jew", says that numerous times in the Synoptic gospels, a story about what Jesus said or did is in reality something created by Christian Jews, for example:

 See here.  I think this is where you try to do god service by exclaiming that just because a scholar more competent than you in the gospels, disagrees with you, doesn't necessarily mean he is in the right.  Well he doesn't have to be.  You can hardly label as irrational the skeptic who says the odds of who is right favor Meier far more than they favor you.

The Gospel authors clearly did not testify with the same initial instructions. There was no unifying investigator present to set the framework for their testimony, so their responses vary in the same way they would vary today if the scope of their testimony was not established from the onset. Mark, according to Papias, the 1st Century Bishop of Hierapolis, “became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.” More concerned about accuracy of individual events than the order in which they occurred, Mark offered details like many of my witnesses who are interviewed without a unified parameter. Mark is simply recording the preaching of Peter, and Peter only referred to portions of Jesus’ life and ministry, making no effort to order them for his listeners.

Your uncritical acceptance of Papias' comment that Peter is Mark's source, is found faulty even by conservative evangelical standards.  Guelich says in the evangelical Word Biblical Commentary:

How is one to accept Papias’s testimony? On the one side, the preponderance of scholarship over the centuries has accepted this witness in total. It has its defendants among critical scholars today (e.g., Cranfield, 5; Kürzinger, BZ 21 [1977] 245–64; Hengel, Studies, 47–50). On the opposite side, many contemporary scholars have totally rejected Papias’s views (e.g., Niederwimmer, ZNW 58 [1967] 172–88; Kümmel, Introduction, 97; Körtner, ZNW 71 [1980] 171). Somewhere in the middle are those who accept Papias’s identification of the writer as Mark but question his explanation of Mark’s material as reminiscences of Peter’s preaching (e.g., Pesch, 1:9; Ernst, 21; Lührmann, 5).

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. Furthermore, the Commentary will demonstrate the presence of multiple traditional milieus (e.g., the two Feedings), stages in the development of traditional units (e.g., 5:1–20), and the thematic combination of units into collections (e.g., 4:1–34) within the Markan materials that point to a more complex traditional background than mental or written notes of another’s preaching. Therefore, while Papias may accurately identify the author as Mark, his description of Mark’s source and content is oversimplified at best.

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

 I'm not saying you lose merely because I can find Christian scholars who disagree with your simplistic uncritical trusting acceptance of patristic testimony.  I'm saying you incorrect to charge skeptics with being unreasonable merely because they hesitate longer than you before accepting patristic sources.

Eyewitness Accounts Vary Based on Their Perspective and Purpose

They also vary sometimes because eyewitnesses tell lies or are sincerely mistaken. Funny how you never give that possibility any consideration.  Actually not really, you are an inerrantist:  You are not here to be objective, but to push the inerrancy agenda.  And if you started personally doubting biblical reliability, the fact that you have a history of making money selling biblical reliability justifies the suspicion that you'd never honestly or publicly admit it.  You become a liberal, and you can look forward to being abandoned by the inerrantist apologists you currently network with.  Most people aren't stupid enough to nuke their opportunities to make money and preserve stability.

In addition, the witnesses I interview often want to highlight a particular element in the crime scene or a particular suspect behavior they think is important. Sometimes their choice of detail is influenced greatly by their own life history. Their values, experiences and personal concerns guide their selection of which details they include, and which they omit. Witnesses also typically try to offer what they think I am looking for as the detective rather than every little thing they actually saw. They are speaking to a specific audience (an investigator), and this has an impact on what they choose to include or omit. When this happens, I have to refocus each witness and ask them to fill in the details they skipped over, including everything they saw, even if they don’t think it’s important to me as a detective. If I don’t encourage eyewitnesses to be more inclusive and specific, they will omit important details.

The Gospel authors were not similarly directed. They had specific audiences in mind and particular perspectives to offer, and none of their testimony was guided by a unifying investigator who could encourage them to fill in the missing details.

 Then you are denying their inspiration by God, whom you say could very well have had them fill in the missing details had He wished them to.

Luke clearly had a particular reader in mind (Theophilus): “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 1)”. Like other witnesses and historians, Luke likely allowed his intended audience to influence his selection of details. His testimony was also most certainly shaped by his own life experience (as an educated man),his own personal history, and his values.

 And conservative Christian scholars can also be found who say this "Theophilus" was just a figure of speech, and that Luke used this name to characterize any Christian reader:

Where did Luke write from, and to whom did he write? These questions probably are unanswerable. Luke dedicated the book to Theophilus, and Theophilus is a Greek name. Did Luke then write primarily to Gentiles? If so, why did he concern himself so much with Jewish questions? Why the elaborate messianic proofs of Peter’s sermons in Acts 2 and 3 if not to provide his readers with a pattern for witness to Jews? The most likely answer is that Luke intended his work for Christian communities that included both Jews and Gentiles—mixed congregations such as those we encounter frequently in Paul’s epistles.

Polhill, J. B. (2001, c1992). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 31). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

In other words, Acts was written for believing communities, and thus not intended to satisfy skeptics, rationally warranting skeptics if they choose to ignore Luke and Acts.  They'd be acting more in conformity to the author's wish, than Christian apologists today who ignore authorial intent and childishly splatter every biblical thing to every part of the cosmos. 

Matthew did something similar when he highlighted the details of Jesus’ life most relevant to Matthew’s Jewish audience.

 But patristic accounts make clear that he wrote for Jews:

The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews. For they laid particular stress upon the fact that Christ [should be] of the seed of David. Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is of the seed of David; and therefore he commences with [an account of] His genealogy.

See here.

That is, the author of Matthew seriously expected for unbelieving Jews to find his story of Jesus' virgin birth to be true, and to find his use of Isaiah 7:14 to be legitimate.  In other words, if you are going to be so accepting of patristic testimony about gospel authorship, the apostles were rather gullible and anti-intellectual.  Any self-respecting non-Christian Jew, knowledgeable of the OT, would not be persuaded by such presumptive storytelling.  Scholars complain there's no evidence in pre-Christian Judaism that Isaiah 7:14 was considered messianic prophecy.  

Yet we have to believe that the author of the most Jewish sounding gospel, surely knew that non-Christian Jews do not just buh-leeve any interpretation of their OT that outsiders give.  Yet Matthew engages in precisely zero attempted justification for his use of Isaiah 7:14, nor does he provide anything useful to help non-Jews track these things down.  He had the objectivity-level of a KJV Onlyist who thinks screaming bible verses at people causes the Holy Spirit to do things.  He seems to think that there's just no rationality in questioning anything he has to say, thus preempting any need for him to bother with the least bit of documentation of sources.  No thank you.

Eyewitness Accounts Vary Based on Their Knowledge of Other Testimony

Sometimes an eyewitness will only provide those details he thinks are missing from the testimony of others. This is most likely to occur if the witness is the last one to be interviewed and he (or she) is already familiar with the testimony of the other witnesses. When I see this happening, I ask this last witness to pretend like he or she is the only witness in my case, “Try to include every detail like I’ve never heard anything about the case. Pretend like I know nothing about the event.” Once the witness has done that, I may go back and re-interview the prior witnesses to see why they didn’t mention the late details offered by the final witness. In the end, my reports related to everyone’s testimony will be as complete as possible, including all the details remembered by each person I interviewed.

The gospel authors were not similarly directed and re-interviewed. John was the last person to provide an account, and he clearly selected those events important to him, given his stated goal: “…many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20)”. John knew what had already been provided by others, and he selected specific events (some which were previously unreported) to make his case.

 And as usual, you tell your followers nothing about the growing conservative Christian scholarly view that John's gospel attributes to Jesus things Jesus never actually said or did.  This, despite your quickness to believe everything you read in the early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria's statement, which clearly differentiates John's subject matter from the "external facts" subject matter in the Synoptics:

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. ( Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6:14)     

But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. (ANF, Vol. II, Fragments of Clement of Alexandria, From the Books of the Hypotyposes)

 It doesn't matter if you can trifle that Clement's remarks can be plausibly interpreted to say John also provided "external facts", you certainly cannot condemn as unreasonable my own interpretation that says Clement here was saying John's purpose was not to convey external facts.  The fact that my interpretation would kill evangelical conservativism in its cradle, doesn't suddenly mean the interpretation is wrong or unreasonable. 

Wallace continues:

He acknowledged his limited choice of data: “…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 (John 21)”. John admitted what we already know: witnesses pick and choose from their own observations unless they are specifically directed to do otherwise.

I don't have a problem with the gospel authors picking and choosing what material to include or exclude.  I have a problem with modern-day Christian apologists who blindly assume that only the explanations for this, which help defend biblical inerrancy, are the only explanations that have any significance.  Once again, you also know that eyewitnesses will differ because they are lying or mistaken, but you never entertain this obvious reality here...probably because to suggest the gospel eyewitnesses differ from each other due to lying or mistake, is to raise possibilities you don't wish to raise...such as bible inerrancy being a false doctrine.

Because the gospel authors were not specifically instructed, guided or re-interviewed by a single detective, we simply cannot conclude much from the differences between the accounts.

Bullshit.  If you think Peter was the source behind Mark's gospel, you'll have a hard time explaining one of Mark's more striking and unexpected omissions:

“Messiah”?  or “Messiah, Son of the living God”?
Mark 8	Matthew 16
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"   28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."   29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."  (omitted!)    30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.  31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must  suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,	13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi,   He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

 Now what, Wallace?  Do you seriously think that Mark knew Jesus' answer was as long and theologically significant as the one we today see in Matthew's version, and Mark merely "chose for unknown reasons to exclude" such critically important part of Jesus' answer?  FUCK YOU.

Conservatives defend by saying Peter didn't wish to impose his authority on others, but this is total bullshit, since if Jesus really did give the longer answer preserved in Matthew, we are reasonable to assume Peter would not sideline Jesus' statement, but would have properly done what even Paul did, and make clear how and why he possesses the authority that he does.

Nah, the authority that Jesus bequeaths on Peter in Matthew's longer version is not something Mark would likely have omitted (Mark never has Jesus giving anybody "keys to the kingdom", so you cannot even pretend that "Mark covered the matter once and didn't feel it needed repeating"), had he known Jesus' answer was that long.  Therefore, you cannot blame me, any skeptic, John Meier, or most Christian scholars, for concluding that Mark omitted it because he and Peter remembered Jesus' answer being shorter, and therefore, Matthew's longer version is not what Jesus really said, it is what Matthew has falsely fabricated and embellished in the effort to give more dramatic effect to this particular scene.

Skeptics sometimes infer more from omissions (or inclusions) in the Gospels than what is reasonable, especially given the manner in which the Gospels came to be written.

And inerrantists sometimes give more weight to inerrancy-favoring explanations than the evidence will allow.  But surely its only the skeptics who are dominated by their presuppositions, while Christian inerrantists are objective calculators pushing no agenda.

Because the four authors were not specifically instructed, guided or re-interviewed by a single detective, we simply cannot conclude much from the differences between the accounts.

That's stupid, there's no Christian gospel scholar on the face of the earth that will say our modern inability to get the authors to fill in the blanks means we cannot draw reasonable inferences from the way they differ from one another.  Even inerrantist Christian scholars, such as J.A. Brooks,  explain Matthew's and Luke's softer form of a story than the version Mark gave, is because they are "toning down" language of Mark that they believe is errant or likely to support an errant view:

Mark 6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 100). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

If Matthew thought Mark's gospel was "inerrant", he'd no more "tone down" Mark's choice of wording than YOU would.  

We must, instead, do our best to employ the four part template we use to evaluate eyewitness reliability after the fact.

 No, we should examine the gospels using standard techniques that all historians use to analyze the probable truth-content of other similarly ancient documents.  There is some overlap between the methods of historiography used by historians, and rules of evidence as used in modern American courts, but the issues with ancient testimony are far more complicated than modern court rules of evidence were intended to address.  Wallace, do you know of any court cases where trial was allowed on a question that required the truth to rest upon what a 2,000 year old document said?  Obviously not.  When I accuse you of using clever marketing bells and whistles as gimmicks to con Christians into buying your stuff, that's not as inaccurate as you'd wish.  What's your next book going to be?  "True Colors:  How Techniques used by Painters Reveal the Truth of Bible Inerrancy?"

The fact that it doesn't make sense is precisely why there's money in it, remember?

This template (as I’ve described it in Cold-Case Christianity), provides us with confidence in the trustworthy nature of the Biblical narratives. That’s why you can trust the Gospel eyewitness accounts, even though some are missing important details.

I find it funny that you never considered an equally likely explanation, that eyewitnesses often differ from one another because some of them are lying or mistaken.  That's also a stark reality daily experienced in courts of law, but you omit this genuine possibility as if only a crazy person would consider it.

Probably because to even start talking about the possibility of eyewitnesses lying or being mistaken, opens the door to kissing bible inerrancy goodbye forever.   Wow, even criminal investigators are blinded by their own biases.  Thanks for the lesson.