I have pointed out to you, Mike, that it isn’t just agnostic and atheist scholars who doubt that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. The majority of NT scholars are Christian, and even if we ignore the scholars who are liberal Christians, there are Christian scholars such as NT Wright who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus who would still refuse to agree with your claim that we can be confident that eyewitnesses definitely wrote the Gospels.
You are trying to paint all scholars who disagree with your position as biased, but how in the world can you accuse someone like NT Wright of being biased???
The truth is that currently the claim that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels stands on very shaky ground even if it is 51% against and 49% in favor. (I would bet it is something more like 80/20). If even experts who are proponents of the bodily resurrection of Jesus are now stating that they are uncertain as to the authorship of the Gospels, your claim that I am biased for not accepting your claim of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is a gross exaggeration.
Gary, why is it that when I point out a logical fallacy in your reasoning you continue to use the fallacious argument? I have pointed out that the lack of certainty of the author is not the same as not being an eyewitness. You even acknowledge that as true, but then you make the same false parallel in your last paragraph above. It is frustrating trying to dialogue with you because you continue to make the same logical mistakes even when pointed out to you and even when you acknowledge the veracity of the logic.
If I know that eyewitness testimony was written down by an unknown scribe, the testimony is eyewitness, nonetheless. Your claim that not knowing the author is the same as not having eyewitness testimony is just fallacious. Please do not use such fallacious reasoning again if you want to have a reasonable dialogue.
Gary: In a court of law, not knowing the source of the alleged eyewitness testimony nor who wrote down the alleged eyewitness testimony and knowing for sure that the testimony is not that of an eyewitness is ultimately the same thing: hearsay. I don’t understand your thinking at all, Mike. Imagine an attorney making this statement to a judge:
“Your Honor, I want to present eyewitness testimony, however, I can’t identify the eyewitness nor can I identify who wrote down the testimony of the eyewitness. But I am sure it is eyewitness testimony and therefore it should be admissible in your court.”
Who is being illogical here?
The majority of all NT scholars (conservatives, moderates, and liberals) believe that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses nor the associates of eyewitnesses. (Here is a link to all the sources which state that this is the current state in New Testament scholarship: here) If you then add to that the number of NT scholars who are uncertain about the authorship of the Gospels, we have an even larger majority of NT scholars who disagree with Mike, a Christian blogger, who claims that Christians can be certain that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. And the fact that scholars such as NT Wright, a favorite scholar among conservative Christians due to his belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, are uncertain as to the authorship of the Gospels shows just how shaky is Mike’s claim that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. It also contradicts Mike’s previous claim that scholars who doubt that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels are “biased” against the supernatural. How can NT Wright be biased against the supernatural when he believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
Why is that so hard for Mike to understand?