In this last in the series on why you should care if the Gospel authors put words into Jesus' mouth I warn again about thinking that "multiple attestation" to some type of teaching or some type of event will make up the epistemic deficiencies of the case, if you've already granted that the Gospel authors did this. As discussed in an earlier video on multiple attestation (see link), what we're looking for is independent attestation to the facts, not just to a "Christian tradition" (which might be erroneous). https://youtu.be/EGVlEhtv0Zo Further, many *specific* doctrines and events are not *overwhelmingly* multiply attested, in such a fashion that we can just toss out as inauthentic one or more of them without having a significantly weakened case. Also, the methodology that calls into question the historical accuracy of a given attestation may, consistently applied, undermine many of the attestations all at once. For instance, if we're putting a big question mark over the recognizable historicity of John's reports of Jesus' teachings, this may affect the vast majority (or even all) of the places where Jesus teaches some particular doctrine explicitly, if these are in John. The need for caution about being cavalier about Gospel accuracy and then trying to fall back on multiple attestation is thus intertwined with the emphases of the previous videos in this series--Jesus' personal teaching is data in a special way, and explicitness is evidentially important. I give several examples of these points, including Jesus' explicit teachings of his pre-existence and Jesus' explicit teachings that the believer need not fear the unintentional loss of his salvation. Thumbnail image by Guma89 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17999924

Why should it matter if the Gospel authors put their words into Jesus' mouth? The sayings in John 8:58 and 10:30 are, at least on the face of it, especially clear as statements of deity. In _Jesus, Contradicted_, Dr. Licona takes this to be a reason to question their recognizable historicity. He argues that, if Jesus was reluctant (as reported in the Synoptics) to let it be widely known that he was the Messiah, he would be that much less likely to state so clearly that he was God. But at the same time, he argues that it doesn't matter anyway, because Jesus presents himself as God so clearly through his actions reported in Mark that it "came to the same thing." Can you spot the tension here? I'll be exploring that tension in this video as well as emphasizing the commonsense fact that explicitness and clarity come together, and that clarity is evidentially relevant. Put simply, the more clearly Jesus made a claim, the better evidence we have from that report that this was what he taught. Here are some quotations from Craig Evans on John, greatly downplaying its literal historicity: https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/transcript-craig-evans-comments-on.html Here is the link to Michael Licona's debate with Bart Ehrman in which he says that it's "irrelevant" whether or not Jesus recognizably taught what is recorded in John about his own deity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP7RrCfDkO4 Here is my earlier video on what's wrong with the "Messianic secret" argument that Licona is using: https://youtu.be/9D9glNp2seE Here is my earlier video cautioning against an incorrect use of multiple attestation: https://youtu.be/EGVlEhtv0Zo

Why should you think that it matters if Jesus didn't historically, recognizably say something recorded in the Gospels? What if that is just the author's extrapolation or application of Jesus' teaching put into his mouth, based on the author's belief that this is the "higher meaning" of what Jesus really taught, or that this is what Jesus would have said if asked? Even if you're not a Christian (yet), it's legitimate for you to wonder what you'd be buying into if you became a Christian. Would you have to adopt the position that apostolic teaching *put into the mouth of Jesus* is just as authoritative as what Jesus really historically taught? That is hardly obvious. The historical teaching of Jesus constitutes theological data in a special way. The Apostle Paul makes it clear in Galatians that he thinks apostles can err, and that Peter did err in not eating with Gentiles. He also says that "we" (presumably himself or other apostles) could in theory teach the Galatians something that contradicted the gospel they had taught before, and that the Galatians needed to be discerning. One way to check apostolic teaching is to see if it agrees with Jesus' historical teaching. There are sayings of Jesus reported in the story of the centurion's sermon that are quite relevant to the question of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together. But what if he never said them? What if Matthew made them up? Before we accept uncritically the view that it doesn't matter if the evangelists put their words in Jesus' mouth, we should consider the ramifications if they did. Then, knowing that it does matter, we can examine the arguments that they did so. I find these arguments completely lacking in force. See The Mirror or the Mask and The Eye of the Beholder for more information. https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1