An Answer to Cerebral Faith's defense of apostolic gospel authorship

This is my reply to an article by "Cerebral Faith" entitled

Cerebral Faith

Reasons To Accept The Gospels' Traditional Authorship

Posted by Evan Minton on November 07, 2017

Non-Christian scholars and laypeople alike have argued that we don't know or can't know who wrote the gospels.

 Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg admits that Matthew's authorship is not demanded by the historical evidence, the best arguments do not amount to proof, and his own conclusion that Matthew is the best candidate, is presented "tentatively":

All of the evidence surveyed so far (“Structure,” “Theology,” etc.) allows for authorship by the apostle Matthew, but none of that evidence demands it…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…But again we present these conclusions tentatively.

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

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

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The gospels are written anonymously, they say, and the names attached to them as we find them in our English Bibles were given to them as a scheme to make their content more credible.

Some skeptic opinion are too skeptical, yes.

After all, if the people writing these things were actually there, that boosts their credibility, doesn't it?

Not unless you think "eyewitness testimony" equals "truth".  But common experience tells us that not only do eyewitnesses lie or get facts wrong, they are willing to lie for their friends and spin facts to make the cause for which they testify appear more justified.

The Non-Christian charge that Matthew didn't really write Matthew,

You give a false impression that only non-Christians denigrate Matthew's authorship. Craig Keener is hailed by apologists as having written a Christian-miracle book that is a game changer in the debate about naturalism v. supernaturalism.  This obviously conservative inerrantist scholar admits the tradition of Matthew's authorship is not as reliable as in the case of other gospel authors:

Authorship. In contrast to, say, Paul’s letters, attributions of authorship in the Gospels are generally based on church tradition rather than evidence in the biblical text itself. Although this tradition is usually trustworthy, in the case of Matthew it may be less reliable (since the same tradition also claims that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, which is not true of our First Gospel). The authorship of the First Gospel is thus debated, but we will speak of “Matthew” for convenience’s sake and lack of a better designation.

 Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993).

The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament.

Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

that John didn't really write John, etc. These were written by people whose identities remain unknown and they attached the names to the gospels to make their claims about Jesus seem legit.

Again, some skeptical opinions are too skeptical.  I'm an atheist, but I don't say whatever Matthew originally wrote is entirely lost.  Perhaps much of what he originally wrote is present in modern canonical Matthew.  But that hardly justifies pretending that his resurrection-testimony is beefed up thereby.

However, I think there are some good reasons to believe that the names attached to these gospels really are the people who wrote them and that the skeptics are wrong.

Again, you misrepresent the issue as if skeptics are the only ones who deny Matthean authorship.  Roman Catholics are big on tradition, yet their scholars call Matthean authorship "untenable": 

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mat 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.  

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke.

The New American Bible

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees,

Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops,

& United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986)

This will not be an exhaustive treatment of the gospel authorship issue, but let me briefly mention three reasons we can believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels.

Reason 1: If people wanted to make up names for the authors of the 4 canonical gospels, they would most likely have chosen weightier names for them.

I have a question for people who say that the canonical gospels are forgeries with the names of the apostles attached to give their content credibility. If people wanted to make up names for the authors of the 4 canonical gospels, then why didn't they choose weightier names for them?

Did you ever notice the names Christians of the 2nd century and afterwardascribed to the apocryphal works?  Thomas, Andrew, Nicodemus, Bartholomew "Acts of Matthias"...neither the bible nor history say much about these figures either, yet for some reason the Christians who created these lies apparently thought ascribing them to such names would increase their popularity.  Consider that perhaps history doesn't tell you how awesome Matthew, Mark and Luke really were.

Names like Peter, Phillip, Mary, James, these names carry a lot of weight. But Mark and Luke weren't even part of the original 12 disciples, nor were they apostles.

I don't see any reason why a forger would have to have an extremist mindset and assume the best way to popularize his works is to ascribe only the most popular apostles to them.  

Matthew was, but he was a hated tax collector and therefore would have been a less likely candidate.

No, tax-collectors were not hated by Christians, and the gospel of Matthew is a Christian production.

I mean, you're writing a document to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah

Christian scholars are very divided on who the canonical gospel authors' originally intended audiences were.  Matthew is the only one for whom a predominantly Jewish audience is plausible. 

and you're going to make the author a person from a group of people the Jews were known to have an intense hatred for?

There is very little historical evidence that the gospel authors intended to write for outsiders. Their failure to clearly identify themselves sounds more like they were writing to those who already knew of and approved of them, than it sounds like they were trying to impress unbelievers.  John's theology is too high to take seriously his comment that he writes so that others will come to salvation (John 20:31), he is clearly writing to edify those who already embrace the faith and need to start being fed spiritual meat.

I don't think so. John was one of Jesus' "inner three", so he's the exception. I'll grant that John's name carries a lot of weight, but this "they-gave-them-names-to-make-the-documents-more-credible argument just simply doesn't work for the other three gospels.

If I were trying to make the canonical gospels more credible by attaching false authors to them, I would have named them things like "The Gospel of Peter", "The Gospel Of Mary", "The Gospel Of Thomas", or if you really wanted to induce credibility, "The Gospel Of Jesus". After all, who could be a better eyewitness to Jesus' life and teachings than Jesus Himself?

You are assuming that a forger in the 1st century would always "go for broke" given the fact that he was lying about everything and wanting to lend his writings apostolic authority.  I've shown above that there is no reason to suppose such a forger would only opt for the most popular names.  A forger would have been just as happy to publish under the name of a follower of an apostle.  I'm not arguing the canonical gospels are forgeries, I'm only demonstrating that your attempts to get rid of the forgery hypothesis are based on a misunderstanding of the way things were in the first and 2nd centuries.

. The canonical gospels don't bare these extremely weighty names.

"bear".

However, it's interesting that the apocryphal gospels do.

Yeah, you would find it interesting that the authors of the apocryphal gospels prioritize those among the original Christians that weren't the most popular.

And everyone knew these were forgeries because they were written until long after the apostles died (i.e into the late second, third, fourth, and even fifth centuries). That's one of the primary reasons they didn't make it into the canon.

You speak as if the early church was confident of which books were apostolic and which weren't. You might wish to consult 4th century Eusebius, the church historian, who, even more than 200 years after the apostles died, was admitting many books remained "disputed":

BOOK III, CHAPTER 3
The Epistles of the Apostles

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. The so-called Acts of Peter, however, and the Gospel which bears his name, and the Preaching and the Apocalypse, as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, as well as in regard to those which are not of this class. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

BOOK III, CHAPTER 25
The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not

Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant final former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers -- we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious. Let us now proceed with our history.

 Eusebius is writing in the 4th century. Let's just say your confident language about how "everybody knew", overstates the case.

Reason 2: The early church is unanimous in their testimony that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, etc.

The early church is also unanimous that Matthew and Luke were written first, an opinion now rejected by the majority of Christian scholars, who adopt Marcan priority.  They are also unanimous that Matthew wrote his original in Hebrew, and most Christian scholars reject this as mistaken given that canonical Matthew derives solely from Greek and doesn't appear to be translation-Greek.

Papias (ca. AD 70-ca. 163) said that St. Pete was Mark's scribe.

I think you meant that Mark was St. Pete's scribe?

He 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."

But you don't consider the date of Papias nor the dispute between Eusebius and Irenaeus about exactly how close to the apostles Papias was in history.  

1 Irenaeus (ca. 115-ca. 202), a student of Ignatius and Polycarp (who were themselves students of the apostle John) wrote: "Mark, the disciple, and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter"

If we are to believe Irenaeus on this point because he was only one-generation removed from John the apostle, then wouldn't you have to, on the same basis, conclude that Irenaeus was being accurate in saying Jesus lived into his 50's?  From his Against Heresies, Book 2:

Chapter XXII.—The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism,

But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died.

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,145 He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged146 by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had147 appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God148 —infants,149 and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,”150 the Prince of life,151 existing before all, and going before all.152

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,”153 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? ”157 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being158 of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;159 and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? ”He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year…

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I  : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6, ANF

2 Clement of Alexandria likewise wrote that those who heard Peter's teachings "were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel,

hence suggesting they were not true converts, since those filled by the Spirit already have what would be supplied by written words.

but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose Gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally."

 What you don't tell the reader is that Eusebius presented Mark as writing only after buckling under pressure, it was not his initial desire to fulfill this church request:

BOOK II, CHAPTER 15
The Gospel according to Mark

And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

 that's bad news for modern day idiots who think the gospel authors intended to write as they did.  Eusebius also says Matthew and John likewise wrote "only under pressure of necessity"

BOOK III, CHAPTER 24 The Order of the Gospels

And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

 

3 These earlier church leaders and students of the apostles were in a position to know whether or not Mark authored the gospel of Mark and whether or not he got his information from Peter.

 The author of the gospel of Peter likely knew whether or not Peter authored it.

Time and time again, they affirm that the Gospel of Mark is indeed written by Mark and that Mark was acting as Peter's scribe.

 Even assuming apostolic authorship is correct, I don't see the gain.  You may as well say everything written by Jews who were in Hitler camps, is true. Well...do you believe the Nazi's made lampshades out of Jewish skin?

Regarding Matthew's gospel, In his Ecclesiastical History, the church historian Eusebius (A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (A.D. 185-254), stating,

“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publician, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism.”

that's right, he learned "by tradition", which is likely something a bit more fuzzy than critical investigation.

Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200), who was a student of Polycarp (A.D. 70-160), who in turn was a student of the apostle John, testifies that John wrote John.

He also said Jesus wasn't crucified until he became an old man.  Still impressed by how close Irenaeus was to John?

Furthermore, he asserts that it was written when John was in Ephesus and when he was well on in years. Irenaeus, for example, said "Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things." 4

Polycarp was a student of John, and Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. This means they were in the best position of all to comment on whether John wrote the gospel of John.

 And the best friend of the gang member on trial for murder, who was there during the shooting, is also in the best position to know what really happened. Therefore, if he says his friend didn't do it, the prosecutor has no choice except to drop charges.

I can imagine Polycarp sitting at John's feet listening to John telling him all about what Jesus said and did, and then at the end John says "By the way, Polycarp. I'm currently writing a book on this. You'll be able to get it at Barnes and Noble in a few weeks".

I can also imagine the gang member, just before committing a murder, telling his friend "if the cops as you about it, just say I was with you the whole night drinking and watching tv!"

Reason 3: Forensic Statement Analysis

J. Warner Wallace

Oh fuck, are you kidding?

talks about this procedure in chapter 5 of his book Cold Case Christianity. Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA) is "the careful study and analysis of the words (both written and spoken) provided by a suspect, witness, or victim. The purpose of Forensic Statement Analysis is to determine truthfulness or deception on the part of the person making the statement." 5 FSA is the art of hanging on every word that a person says. In the work of a homicide detective like Wallace, when they are interviewing witnesses about the events of a crime, detectives carefully scrutinize and dissect every word the witness includes in his or her statement to see if it provides them with any clues about their involvement or lack thereof in the crime. In Wallace' book, he provides two examples of this. In the first example, Wallace recalls interviewing a man whom he called "Scott" about the murder of a young woman in his city in 1981. His question, the same as it was to the other witnesses he interviewed, was "How did you feel about this woman's death?" Scott's response was surprising. "Well, I was sorry to see her dead, you know. We didn't always get along, but it's never good to see anyone die". The detectives knew that the killers stood over the victim's body and made sure she was dead by nudging her. So, Wallace wrote, "it could be reasonably inferred that the killer 'saw her dead'". Of course, this isn't enough to convict someone of murder. But it is a clue that pointed them in the right direction. The statement was only one piece in a large collection of evidence that ended up indicting him.

In J. Warner Wallace's investigation of the gospels' reliability as eyewitness testimony, he applied Forensic Statement Analysis to the text to determine whether the gospels were really written by the people whose names are attached to them. And the amount of FSA clues actually make for a pretty powerful cumulative case for the traditional gospel authorship. Let's look at some of Wallace's findings with regards to...

THE GOSPEL OF MARK --

The way the gospel of Mark is worded strongly hints at Peter being the source of the information.

Gee, that conclusion wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that church history has been telling you your whole life that Mark is a written record of Peter's preaching, would it?

As we've seen above, the early church's testimony was unanimous that Mark's gospel was actually Peter's gospel.

Thank you for your honesty.

1: Mark mentioned Peter with prominence.

Peter is featured frequently in Mark's gospel. He referred to him 26 times in his gospel.

 And when Matthew quoted Mark about wthat Peter said, he apparently wasn't satisfied with Mark's inerrant text:

“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."  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.

Sorry, but if Mark was based on Peter's preaching, we'd expect the opposite, that Mark's record of Peter's speech would be more inclusive of content.  No speculation on your part about "well maybe Mark was running out of paper, or felt the shortened form was appropriate" is going to change the fact the historical improbability here.

Matthew referred to Peter only 3 additional times in his much longer gospel.

 Mark's 16 chapter mention Peter 21 times, an average of 1.31 times per chapter.

Matthew's 28 chapters mention Peter 23 times, an average of 1.2 times per chapter.

Sorry, but the difference between "1.2" and "1.3" would only be considered significant by inerrantists.

 

2: Mark Identified Peter with the most familiarity

Mark is the only writer who never once used the term "Simon Peter".

Suggesting the author wasn't a Christian, since he himself admits Jesus assigned Simon the new name of Peter, and a Christian would rather do things Jesus' way than any other: 16 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), (Mk. 3:16 NAU)

He uses the words "Simon" and "Peter" but never "Simon Peter". This may seem like a silly and frivolous thing to point out, but not when you consider that "Simon" and "Peter" were the most popular male names in 1st-century Palestine.

No can do:  Mark was likely writing for a Roman church.

Mark never makes an effort to distinguish between the Apostle Simon with the boatloads of other Simons running around. Compare this to John's referring of the apostle as "Simon Peter" 17 times.

post-biblical history doesn't say shit about Apostle Simon either, suggesting the number of Jesus' original disciples has more theological than historical significance.

3: Mark Used Peter As a Set Of "Bookends"

In Cold Case Christianity, Wallace points out that out of the 12 disciples, Mark identifies Peter first (Mark 1:16) and he mentions him last at the very end of his gospel (Mark 16:7). Wallace said that scholars describe this as "inclusio" and noticed this same thing occurring in other ancient writings where the document is attributed to an individual. In these other ancient writings, it was the individual being "bookended" that was also the one who wrote the thing.

But a true Christian would have started and ended with Jesus, making himself fade into the background.

4: Mark Omitted Peter's Embarrassments

If you're writing a biography of someone and you're heavily involved in their life, you'd probably have a tendency to leave unflattering and embarrassing details about yourself out, right?

Not if you are inspired by an inerrant God who is incapable of giving a false impression of the facts.

You would paint yourself in a much gentler light than someone else would. We find Peter painted in the kindest possible way in Mark's gospel, far more kinder than the other 3 gospels which recount the same events. For example, while Matthew 14:22-23 calls Peter a doubter and a "man of little faith", Mark 6:45-52, which records the same event, omits Peter's involvement altogether.

 No, Mark 6:52 is including Peter in saying the disciples prior witnessing of Jesus' miracles still gave them no insight into Jesus' true nature. Mark is therefore saying Peter's level of obstinate stupidity was the same as that of the other disciples.

Luke 5 records Jesus' miracle of the catching of the fish in which Peter doubts Jesus' wisdom. Yet Mark's parallel account omits Peter's cynicism altogether.

 And for those who originally read Mark (i.e., at a time when access to other gospels was impossible) they would have gotten a more favorable impression of Peter than could be historically justified. In this case Mark being Peter's disciple gets you in trouble.  The buddy is lying by omission to make his hero look better.

5: Mark mentions details that can best be attributed to Peter

J. Warner Wallace explains that "Mark alone included a number of seemingly unimportant details that point to Peter's involvement in the shaping of the text. Mark alone told us that 'Simon and his companions' were the ones who went looking for Jesus when He was praying in a solitary place (Mark 1:35-37). Mark is also the only gospel to tell us that it was Peter who first drew Jesus' attention to the withered fig tree (compare Matt 21:18-19 with Mark 11:20-21). Mark alone seemed to be able to identify the specific disciples (including Peter) who asked Jesus about the timing of the destruction of the temple (compare Matt 24:1-3 with Mark 13:1-4)." 6

Even assuming Mark's gospel pays more attention to Peter than the others, I fail to see how you justify the jump over to "Mark must have been an eyewitness!".  It is to Wallace's shame that serious NT scholars who actually know what the fuck they are talking about, NEVER use these arguments to justify being dogmatic about Peter's influence over Mark's gospel:

"Petrine influence cannot be proved or disproved, but it should be acknowledged as a possibility."

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 27). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 

Given this cumulative set of FSA pieces of evidence, the best explanation is that Mark really did write Mark and that he really did get his information from Peter.

Then the fact that Matthew often corrects Mark constitutes Matthew's correcting Peter.

Was Jesus incapable, or merely unwilling? Why didn’t Matthew want others to know that Jesus marveled at sinners lacking faith?
Mark 6	Matthew 13
NAU  Mark 6:1 Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him.  2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?  3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.  4 Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household."  5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.  6 And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching.	54 He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?  55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?  56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"  57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."  58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

First, there will be inerrantists who are so zealous to pretend everything has fast easy answers, that they don’t stop to notice that inerrantists and non-inerrantist Christian scholars don’t find things so obvious:

Mark 6:1-6…The statement in v. 5 about the inability of Jesus is also difficult. Whether Mark’s source was Peter is much less certain.[1][1] NAC, Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark, p. 97

Geisler also has much difficulty explaining Mark 5:8 (where Jesus more than once commanded some demons to leave) and Mark 6:5 (where the text says that Jesus was not able to do any miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief of the people there) (see pp. 149, 152).[2]

[2] Wayne Grudem, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine,

Zondervan Publishing House, 2008

It is a strange expression, as if unbelief tied the hands of omnipotence itself[3]

[3] Matthew Henry, Mark 6:5

Barclay knows what’s up:

Matthew shrinks from saying that Jesus could not do any mighty works; and changes the form of the expression accordingly.[4]

[4] The Gospel of Matthew  : Volume. 2000, c1975 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

This conclusion from Forensic Statement Analysis is only made stronger by the testimonies of the early church fathers, and the fact that Mark isn't a likely name you'd make up if you wanted to forge a gospel.

You don't know to what extent Mark was hailed as an authority in the early church, so you cannot pontificate on how a forger "would never" ascribe his gospel to the name of Mark.

Forensic Statement Analysis can actually be used to confirm the authorship of the other three gospels, but for brevity's sake, I've chosen to only highlight how it helps the case for Mark's gospel.

And the fact that Wallace cannot cite any actual scholars of the NT that find his FSA credible, sort of sucks for him.  

This Is Irrelevant To The Minimal Facts Approach

I'd like to point out that while establishing the authorship of the traditional gospels may be important to their overall reliability and trustworthiness, in The Minimal Facts approach, the issue of gospel authorship is totally irrelevant. It can be set aside.

 I accuse Habermas of taking the minimal facts approach precisely because he knew that doing things the standard way (i.e., establishing the identities and credibility of the alleged Jesus-resurrection eyewitnesses) constituted mission impossible.

How so?

First of all, Dr. Gary Habermas says that the minimal facts approach only uses data that meet two criteria: (1) the fact must have a lot of evidence in its favor, and (2) it must be nearly universally excepted by all scholars who study the subject, even the skeptical non-Christian scholars.

If J. Warner Wallace wants to apply modern American notions of evidence to the bible, then he needs to reject Habermas' shortcut approach and stick with establishing the eyewitnesses' identities and their respective levels of credibility.

While I do think the traditional authorship meets criteria 1, it's obvious that it doesn't meet criteria 2.

Secondly, the principles of historical authenticity or "The criterion of authenticity" can still be applied to all of the New Testament documents (epistle and gospel alike) to cough up the 5 facts which undergird the inference to Jesus' bodily resurrection (i.e Jesus died by crucifixion, His tomb was empty the following Sunday morning, that church persecutor Saul was converted on the basis of what he perceived as an appearance of the risen Jesus, and that the skeptic James was converted on the basis of what he perceived as an appearance of the risen Jesus), see here and here.

For example, one argument for the historicity of Jesus' unoccupied tomb is that all 4 gospels mention women as the chief witnesses to the tomb, and given their low rung on the 1st century Jewish social latter and the fact that they weren't permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law, the gospel authors would never have made women the first on the scene if they were just making stuff up.

I think you and Wallace and Habermas have missed the boat:  the gospels were not written to convince unbelievers, the consistent testimony of the patristic sources is that the gospels were written to edify the church, and since the church elevated women higher than their own culture did, a church forger, creating gospels, would see much benefit to having women be the first eyewitnesses.

If they were making up the empty tomb narrative, they would have made males the first on the scene (far more credible witnesses). Now, does it matter whether you find this in the gospels of (A) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or (B) The gospels of Bob, Tim, Suzan, and Randy? No. The criterion would still apply. Group A or Group B would probably have avoided making women the chief witnesses of the empty tomb for the reasons given above if they were simply making it up

 then apparently apostle Paul was making stuff up, because in his own chronological list of resurrection appearances, he mentions no women...despite his theological belief that they are equal with men in every way, thus leaving him no culturally ingrained reason to view the witness of women as less reliable or unworthy of preservation:

 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:3-8 NAU)

 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 NAU)

. The Jerusalem Factor argument would also be unaffected (i.e that the empty tomb is the best explanation for the opponents of Christianity didn't just produce Jesus' body to squash the whole thing).

Sorry, but a) you are assuming unbelievers hearing the original Christian message gave enough of a shit about the message to bother with the legal mess of opening the grave and following Christians around with a display of the Jesus' corpse, which is fucking stupid; b) you are assuming no such thing happened, when in fact by your own admission, some gospel authors felt it best to omit things they felt would hinder their case.  If anybody did use Jesus' corpse to disprove the original resurrection preaching, we have good reason to think Christians would have made sure to do what Mark did in the case of Peter, and "omit" details that would make the movement look foolish, and c) Acts makes it clear that the disciples didn't publicly preach the resurrection of Jesus until at least 40 days after he died (Acts 1:3), during which time the corpse would have decomposed sufficiently to make it difficult or impossible to use it to discredit the resurrection preaching.

And I think Acts is bullshit anyway, the consensus of Christian scholars is that Mark is the earliest gospel and ends at 16:8, meaning the earliest written form of Christian preaching leaves you no historical evidence that the risen Christ ever made any resurrection appearances.  So if Acts has the apostle going all over hell and back screaming their heads off about the bodily resurrection of Jesus, it's a good story...and that's all.

You can still make The Jerusalem Factor argument without knowing who authored the gospels.

But proper identification of the alleged eyewitnesses and independent evaluation of their testimony and credibility is still the more responsible method of establishing history.  For example, the unanimity of the early church fathers on Matthew's authorship of  gospel is rejected by most scholars who think all the Fathers are doing is merely repeating what Papias had to say.  In other words, there can be legitimate scholarly concern that what looks so "multiply attested" is actually a single false testimony that was picked up and echoed by subsequent authors.

Or, does it matter in establishing that Jesus died by crucifixion? No, both the canonical gospels and John mention Jesus' crucifixion, and therefore they can be included in the list of ancient documents that record it along with Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar Sarapian, and the epistles of Paul. We can still include the gospels as being additional sources in our claim that Jesus' death by crucifixion is multiply attested, no matter who wrote them.

Now, whether or not Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, and the other epistles would have a bearing on the potency of the minimal facts approach, but virtually no skeptical historian of ancient history doubts that Paul wrote the epistles that bare his name (save for the pastoral epistles), so we apologists don't have to worry about that.

 Correct, Paul can be impeached by his own statements and errors, no need to invoke German theologians of the 19th century who are skeptical of everything except their own skepticism.

I bring this up because gospel authorship is one of the things I hear in my debates against skeptics about the minimal facts case for the resurrection of Jesus, and it's just not relevant.

on the contrary, establishing the identity and credibility of the alleged resurrection eyewitnesses is the more justified historiographical procedure.

------------------
 I informed "Cerebral faith" of this reply:

Cold Case Christianity: J. Warner Wallace didn't know that God honors non-forensic faith

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

The Danger of Belief “In” Without Belief “That”

Posted: 09 May 2018 04:36 AM PDT

279I’ve been writing lately about the difference between belief “that” and belief “in,” following a recent radio interview with John Stonestreet for the BreakPoint Radio program. As I’ve described in previous posts, I came to belief that the gospels were a reliable record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus on the basis of the most reasonable inference from the evidence.

That's not biblical. The bible says the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit (1st Cor. 2:14).  While it might be true that you found the NT to be historically reliable in all that it says before you came to actual faith, your experience runs contrary to the biblical explanation.

But at that early point in my investigation, I still didn’t understand the Gospel message of Salvation. As a result, I hadn’t yet placed my trust in Jesus as my Savior.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me:  there was a time when you believed the NT was a reliable record of the resurrection of Jesus...in which you also didn't yet have faith?  

I had belief that, but not belief in. There’s a big difference between rational assent and reasonable trust. Years later, I now appreciate the difference between these two states of mind and the important relationship they have to one another. In fact, I’ve come to realize belief in, without belief that, can be quite dangerous.

But "belief in" without "belief that" is still biblical. In the bible, the hope which saves, is the hope that is blind by definition:

 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Rom. 8:24-25 NAU)

As a skeptical investigator, my journey toward reasonable trust in Jesus was inseparably linked to a rational examination of the evidence.

 All Mormon apologists claim the same thing.

As I was becoming interested in the claims of the New Testament, my Mormon sister introduced me to the Book of Mormon. I decided to work through this second text, even as I was investigating the New Testament gospels. I was equally skeptical of both books, and I examined them critically with the template I typically use to evaluate witnesses. While the Bible held up under this scrutiny, the Book of Mormon did not. Based on the evidence, there was no reason to believe that the Book of Mormon was true, and for this reason, I could never trust in it for anything it may say about God or salvation.

 then apparently you forgot:  hope that is seen, is not hope.

But this was not the case for my Mormon family. As I’ve talked with them over the years, I’ve discovered that none of them came to trust in the claims of Mormonism after first examining them evidentially to make sure that they were true. Instead, they came to trust the Book of Mormon after reading it, praying about it, and experiencing some form of “spiritual” confirmation.

It's your own god's fault if a person goes to him in prayer about the Book of Mormon and comes away think the still small voice is telling them the Book of Mormon is true.  Nowhere does the bible express or imply that prayer is an irrational method of truth-seeking on the question of which alleged "holy books" are actually from god.  And since most bible scholars see bits of polytheism expressed by the biblical authors, you cannot even argue that Mormonism's denial of monotheism pre-empts any need to "pray" about it:  the average unbeliever doesn't have the time to wade through countless writings of OT scholars to decide whether the ancient Israelite religion was first polytheistic.  Under your logic, kids should never ask their parents for anything, since if they just do an analysis of the evidence, they will figure out what mom and dad's most likely response will be, hence negating any need to ask.

These personal experiences varied from one member of my family to another; each had a personal testimony they would have been happy to share. But if you asked them for some evidence to support their belief in the reliability of the Mormon scripture, none of them could have provided a response beyond their own subjective experience.

How did you answer them when they referred you to Mormon apologists?

Mormons aren’t the only believers who embrace this subjective “epistemology” (approach to assessing and accepting a truth claim).

But some Mormons are "apologists" and have been answering your Protestant criticisms for decades.

As I’ve travelled across the country making the case for the reliability of the gospels,

Thus indicating your desire to draw attention to yourself and make money by selling Jesus, since you are surely smart enough to recognize that the county or city in which you live has plenty of its own problems rejecting the gospel. You don't need to go galloping around the world, and original Christianity did not express or imply that all of it's members take on the responsibility of apostles, teachers or evangelists.  There is every possibility and probability that you only chose the more "hey-everybody-look-at-me" style of Christianity because you simply wish to get fame and fortune selling Jesus.  Maybe I should nickname you as "apostle Paul".  The original 12 disciples had no intent to preach to anybody except Jews (Galatians 2:9), a biblical rebuttal to post-ascension legends saying they went their separate ways and evangelized far away countries.

I’ve discovered this to be the approach of most committed Christians as well.

 Thank you for a great rebuttal to the so-called "Impossible Faith" theory that says Christianity could never have taken hold in the first century unless real provable miracles had really taken place.  We all know how stupid and gullible religious people can be, don't we.

Many of the people in my audiences have never previously considered the evidence I’m presenting. In fact, most tell me they’ve never even thought about the role evidence might play in their faith.

Sounds like the bible they've been reading for decades doesn't exactly support Paul Little's "Know why you believe what you believe!" bullshit.

Few have ever read an “apologetics” book.

yet they somehow maintained a faith in Christ nonetheless.  Apparently, those who push apologetics drugs are highly expendable with little to no effect on Christianity as a whole.

When I ask them about their own journey of faith, they sound much like my Mormon siblings. Some were raised in the Church, some have had personal experiences they’ve interpreted as confirmation, and some were convinced by the loving nature of the Christian community. Most have come to trust in Jesus without ever examining the evidence beyond their own personal experience.

 I see no reason why it should be otherwise with Christianity's first 300 years.

Of course these brothers and sisters in the Lord are saved; their trust in Christ as Savior has secured their salvation.

You mean God was willing to "save" the type of person who doesn't give two shits about apologetics?

But if they had been exposed to Mormonism prior to being exposed to Christianity, it’s they may have been Mormons today (if they had approached and examined Mormonism as they eventually approached and examined Christianity).

And if they had been exposed to the fallacies of Christian thought by informed skeptics who are capable of demonstrating the stupidity necessarily inherent in Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", they might have become atheists.

This is the danger of belief in without belief that. While rational assent is insufficient, an unreasonable trust is deficient and dangerous.

 then you must think apostle Paul was guilty of unreasonable trust, since he insists he took a real trip to heaven, and yet 14 years after the fact, still cannot tell whether this was a physical or spiritual event:

 1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.
 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
 3 And I know how such a man-- whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--
 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. (2 Cor. 12:1-4 NAU)

Would you advise Paul that his belief "in" this experience is dangerous since he confesses to not knowing "that" or "how" it happened?  In light of your previous condemnation of subjective experiences, your answer would presumably be "yes".

An unexamined faith can be misplaced and, if nothing else, difficult to defend when challenged by others.

Only if you assume that the god of the bible gives two shits about his people "defending" their faith.  The fact that he doesn't may be inferred from the biblical requirement to excommunicate any morally or theologically errant brother/sister after a second warning (Titus 3:9-11), and the prohibition on wrangling words (2nd Timothy 2:14), since that amounts to prohibiting 99% of everything ever stated in conservative bible commentaries and apologetics books.

I want people to eventually place their trust in Jesus as Lord, but I want them to arrive at this saving trust by first examining the evidence.

Five Point Calvinists believe all the "essential" doctrine you do, but say the precise way somebody came into a saving faith is the way God infallibly predestined them to.  The more you slam subjective faith, the more you slam God's infallible decree.  Or maybe telling your audience about this in-house Christian debate wouldn't contribute toward successfully advertising your wares?

As they move through belief that to belief in, they’ll have confidence they’ve placed their trust in the true God of the Universe.

By your own admissions, supra, they achieved that level of confidence without the help of any "apologetics", and you also admit that such subjective faith had resulted in genuine salvation.  Like the Holy Spirit, "apologetics" appears to be nothing more significant to God than a gratuitous afterthought.  How many Christians between 200 a.d. and 1900 a.d. were genuinely saved despite their obvious inability to research bbilical bullshit as deeply as we can today?  How did they manage to enter into and nurture a spiritually progressive genuinely saving faith without being able to google "how to answer bible contradictions", and without being able to read "Cold-Case Christianity"?

You'll excuse me if I find that your desire to become famous by selling Jesus isn't too different in principle from the like of Benny Hinn and other obvious con artists.

Cold Case Christianity: Wallace proves the resurrection of Jesus with blind faith in bible inerrancy.

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

Cold Case Christianity: 

A Brief Review of Explanations Offered for the Resurrection (Free Bible Insert)

Posted: 04 May 2018 01:01 AM PDT

 ...The following brief summary of explanatory deficiencies is excerpted from my book, Cold Case Christianity. I’ve omitted larger observations from the book related to my own case work and experience as a detective; this abbreviated list is merely a summary of the historic observations related to each explanation. A more comprehensive examination is included in the chapter explaining the process of abductive reasoning.  If we begin with a minimal list of evidences related to the Resurrection of Jesus (Jesus died on the cross and was buried, Jesus’s tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body, Jesus’s disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead, and Jesus’s disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations), the following explanations, along with their deficiencies, must be evaluated:

...Were the Disciples Lying About the Resurrection?

1. The Jewish authorities took many precautions to make sure the tomb was guarded and sealed, knowing that the removal of the body would allow the disciples to claim that Jesus had risen (Matt. 27:62–66).

 To the contrary, Matthew 27:62 specifies that one day seperated Joseph of Arimathea's acquisition of the body and the time the guards show up at the tomb,thus a day in which anything could have happened to the body:

 57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus.
 58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.
 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away.
 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave.
 62 Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,
 63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'
 64 "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception will be worse than the first."
 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how."
 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.   (Matt. 27:57-66 NAU)

 Wallace continues:

2. The people local to the event would have known it was a lie

Would the people who preserved gospel histories have preserved hostile witness testimony?  Not likely.  Matthew's story about how the Jews bribed the guards to account for the missiing body by saying they were asleep when the disciples stole the body, is not preservation of hostile witnesses, it is fictional propaganda.

(remember that Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 that there were still five hundred people who could testify to having seen Jesus alive after His resurrection).

remember also that Paul, who said Christ would be of no benefit to those who receive circumcision (Galatians 5:2), was willing to act in defiance of this theological truth whenever he thought lying would make things go easier between him and the Jews (Acts 16:3), despite the fact that in Acts 16:3, Paul surely knew that the Jews there were insisting on circumcision because they thought it was the basis of salvation for the Gentile (Exodus 12:48).  See Paul's willingness to lie about his true theological convictions when in the company of those he knows disagree with him (1st Cor. 9:20-21), a matter that caused Augustine and Jerome to disagree with each other.

3. The disciples lacked the motive to create such a lie (more on this in chapter 14).

 In the context of stealing a physical human body, that might be significant, but I maintain the original reports of Jesus' resurrection consisted solely of visions, which were themselves embellishments upon a gospel whose earlier form said nothing about a risen Christ appearing to anyone (Christian scholarly consensus that Mark 16 ends at v. 8).

4. The disciples’ transformation following the alleged resurrection is inconsistent with the claim that the appearances were only a lie. How could their own lies transform them into courageous evangelists?

The following passage from Acts 9 demonstrates a) after Saul converted and became Paul, he did not face persecution and threats of death fearlessly, he escaped by being lowered in a basket outside the city walls...and we also learn that the original disciples, after their experiences of seeing the risen Christ, would not believe reports that Saul the persecutor had converted, and remained fearful until Barnabas gave them concrete evidence that Saul had really converted, so this is biblical evidence that seeing the risen Christ did not transform them into "courageous evangelists":

 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
 23 When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him,
 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death;
 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket.
 26 When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.
 27 But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus.
 28 And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. (Acts 9:22-28 NAU)

Wallace continues:

Did the Disciples Hallucinate the Resurrection?

1. While individuals have hallucinations, there are no examples of large groups of people having the exact same hallucination.

But a theory that the apostles experience similar hallucinations in a religiously charged context, is enough to get the cult started, even assuming they didn't share the exact same mental images.

2. While a short, momentary group hallucination may seem reasonable, long, sustained, and detailed hallucinations are unsupported historically and intuitively unreasonable.

Google the Brownsville Revival and Toronto Blessing.  Christians don't even need "visions" to get some bullshit group started.  And the famine of 43 a.d. (Acts 11:28) would motivate many starving individuals to align themselves with groups.   The notion that nothing but true miracles can explain Christianity's start in the first century, is bullshit.

3. The risen Christ was reported seen on more than one occasion and by a number of different groups (and subsets of groups). All of these diverse sightings would have to be additional group hallucinations of one nature or another.

 I don't see the implausibility of one religious fanatic causing others to get caught up in the moment and stand around convincing themselves they are all having the same experience.  Ask any group of fundamentalist Pentecostals to give you the gift and power of the Holy Spirit, and you'll find out rather quickly how 10 different people can falsely convince themselves that they are all having the same religious experience.

4. Not all the disciples were inclined favorably toward such a hallucination. The disciples included people like Thomas, who was skeptical and did not expect Jesus to come back to life.

While such stories might appear to fulfill the criteria of embarrassment, they likely were intended to make the lesson learned, all the more dramatic, and as such, they ARE something a forger would likely invent.  Thomas's doubt gives rise to the "blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed" stuff.  There is literary purpose to stories of apostolic skepticism.

5. If the resurrection was simply a hallucination, what became of Jesus’s corpse?

 It was buried in a common graveyard with other criminals' corpses.  Once again, the lack of a physical body for the early Christians wouldn't prevent them from seeing Jesus in visions (see Revelation 1:1-4).

The absence of the body is unexplainable under this scenario.

On the contrary, the hallucination hypothesis seeks only to explain the sightings.  There's plenty of historical evidence to warrant the other conclusion that the body of Jesus was disposed of in a common graveyard.

Were the Disciples Fooled by an Imposter?

1. The impersonator would have to be familiar enough with Jesus’s mannerisms and statements to convince the disciples. The disciples knew the topic of the con better than anyone who might con them.

2. Many of the disciples were skeptical and displayed none of the necessary naïveté that would be required for the con artist to succeed.

3. The impersonator would need to possess miraculous powers; the disciples reported that the resurrected Jesus performed many miracles and “convincing proofs” (Acts 1:2–3).

4. Who would seek to start a world religious movement if not one of the hopeful disciples? This theory requires someone to be motivated to impersonate Jesus other than the disciples themselves.

5. This explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or missing body of Jesus.

I'm a skeptic, but I don't put any stock in any imposter-theory.

Were the Disciples Influenced by Limited Spiritual Sightings?

1. The theory fails to account for the numerous, divergent, and separate group sightings of Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels.

No, the theory simply doesn't believe that eveyrthing stated in the bible is true.  We don't need to "account" for all NT evidence anymore than Christians need to "account" for the lost origins of popular fairy tales, to know that they are false.

These sightings are described specifically with great detail.

The gospel authors were good storytellers.

It’s not reasonable to believe that all these disciples could provide such specified detail if they were simply repeating something they didn’t see for themselves.

But its reasonable once you remember that the problematic details were happening in 33 a.d., and had until 50 a.d. to work out the bugs and kinks before putting anything down in writing.

2. As many as five hundred people were said to be available to testify to their observations of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:3–8).

You don't have the first clue as to whether Paul knew this by experience or hearsay, yet you continue talking of these "500 witnesses" as if they and what they saw was gospel truth.

Could all of these people have been influenced to imagine their own observations of Jesus?

Yes, read about how 120 people can experience delusions in groups, in Acts 2.

It’s not reasonable to believe that a persuader equally persuaded all these disciples even though they didn’t actually see anything that was recorded.

Let's first establish the veracity of these "500 witnesses" before we start pretending they are the crossbeam holding everything together.

3. This explanation also fails to account for the empty tomb or the missing corpse.

The hallucination hypothesis explains the sightings, not the empty tomb or missing corpse.  Those matters are answered under the theories of embellishment, since by Christian scholarly consensus, Mark is the earliest gospel and he stopped at 16:8, thus the original form of the gospel didn't tell about Jesus "appearing" to anyone, that crap was created later.

Were the Disciples’ Observations Were Distorted Later?

1. In the earliest accounts of the disciples’ activity after the crucifixion, they are seen citing the resurrection of Jesus as their primary piece of evidence that Jesus was God.

That's what they do in the Book of Acts, but this wasn't written until at least 62 a.d., at the earliest, and so the stories of the initial preaching had time to be embellished. 

From the earliest days of the Christian movement, eyewitnesses were making this claim.

Eyewitness also routinely provide alibis for their friends who are in court facing criminal charges.  You never suspected until just now that eyewitnesses might actually lie about something.  You gain nearly nothing by merely pointing out that eyewitnesses preached the resurrection at an early period.  Hell, the gnostics were early too (1st John 4:3), so what?

2. The students of the disciples also recorded that the resurrection was a key component of the disciples’ eyewitness testimony (more on this in chapter 13).

No, Mark was traditionally a student of Peter, and Mark's gospel ends at 16:8 by Christian scholarly consensus.  Apparently, when Peter was preaching in Rome with Mark walking behind him, Peter did not say anything about witnesses actually seeing a risen Christ, since otherwise Mark would surely have recorded such a thing.

3. The earliest known Christian creed or oral record (as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15) includes the resurrection as a key component.

 But the risen Christ himself makes his pre-crucifixion teachings the key component, Matthew 28:20.

4. This explanation also fails to account for the fact that the tomb and body of Jesus have not been exposed to demonstrate that this late legend was false.

You also fail to demonstrate that skeptics of Christianity in the days immediately following Jesus' death would have given two shits about the Christian claims enough to bother "exposing" it as false.  You also wrongfully trivialize the possibility that there was criticism, but like much else in early Christianity, records of such have disappeared.  I don't care of Acts has the disciples preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus within two months after he died, Luke is a liar who embellishes details.

Were the Disciples Simply Telling the Truth?

1. This explanation has only one liability: It requires a belief in the supernatural; a belief that Jesus had the supernatural power to rise from the dead in the first place.

Wrong, that explanation has another liability, that those who believe it, accept as true that which was written by religious fanatics 2,000 years ago, whose identities cannot be established sufficiently to justify trusting them.

Every explanation offered for a particular set of facts has its own set of unique deficiencies. Even a true explanation will suffer from some apparent liability. As a cold-case detective, my cases (even those in which the defendant confessed to the crime following his conviction) have always presented unanswered questions and apparent deficiencies. Jurors were encouraged to make a decision in spite of these deficiencies by selecting the best inference from the evidence: the explanation that best explains the facts of the case while possessing the fewest liabilities.

 This juror gives the following explanation:  Most Christian scholars agree that Mark ends at 16:8, and if true, it means the the original Christian preaching did not say a risen Jesus was seen by anybody.  Christian scholars also agree in majority that Matthew and Luke borrowed substantial amounts of text from Mark, and its no coincidence that these later gospels suddenly come up with richly detailed resurrection narratives.  They certainly didn't get that shit from their source material (Mark).  They were making it up.

With that in mind, it’s important to recognize the deficiency of the Christian explanation: It requires a belief in the supernatural.

 And "supernatural" implies the existence of something whose location constitutes an incoherency: "above" nature, "beyond" nature, or "outside" of time.

For many people, this is a deal killer; this is the reason they simply cannot accept the Christian account.

For this skeptic, the incoherence of religious language is just one reason among many that break the Christian deal with me.  The others are the failure of Christians to make a good case for apostolic authorship of the gospels and the biblical silence toward most of the original 11 disciples of Jesus, when under Christian assumptions, they likely conducted ministries just as successful as Paul's.  I say Luke didn't give a shit about most of the apostles because he knew they left the faith.

But as I’ve written in the past, we cannot begin our investigation of supernatural claims (like the Resurrection) by rejecting supernaturalism from the onset.

 That's your problem:  you claim to be able to make a historical case that Jesus rose from the dead, then you admit that the case cannot be made if the investigator doesn't believe in magic.  FUCK YOU.

We cannot start with our conclusions predetermined.

Then you must have been irrational everytime you strongly suspected, but couldn't immediately prove, that somebody was lying to do.

While the Christian explanation does present a deficiency of sorts, this liability is actually a matter of presupposition rather than evidential sufficiency.

 So let's debate the presupposition.  Before we ask whether God exists, we need a working definition.  You have none.  Your bible says God is inscrutible, you describe him as filling up the universe, that he is "outside of time", that he hears your prayers but doesn't have ears, he speaks without vocal cords, he causes things to happen inside time meaning he somehow transfers back and forth between the dimension of time and the dimension of eternity.  Sorry, you lose.