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