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

Should you care if the Gospel authors put their own interpretations into the mouth of the historical Jesus? What if the Gospels record things as though said by the historical Jesus when the historical Jesus never recognizably said those things in those contexts? Did the evangelists think that they were licensed to do this because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that their own interpretations had exactly the same status as the words of the historical Jesus? Would it matter if they did? Here I start to address that question. First I point out that the position I'm disagreeing with is very strong, because functionally it amounts to attributing infallibility to the apostles' interpretations, equal to the infallibility of Jesus, solely on the grounds that Jesus did commission apostles. This strong theological position is hardly an unquestionable given! Then I address this question: Is the importance of the distinction between what Jesus recognizably taught on earth and apostolic interpretations a modern imposition on ancient documents? I answer that it isn't. The Gospels themselves and the apostles themselves made this distinction. The Apostle Paul himself makes this distinction. And in fact, this distinction is especially prominent in the Gospel of John, despite the fact that John's Gospel is the one where critical scholars most often say that the author elaborated Jesus' teachings, while putting them in Jesus mouth. If John was doing this, while giving the strong impression that he recognized and maintained the distinction between his own interpretations and Jesus' historical teachings, he was being deceptive. Thanks to Erik Manning for help with the thumbnail image.

In recent interviews Dr. Michael Licona has invoked the name of D. A. Carson, giving the strong impression that Carson shared/shares Licona's own views of the Gospel of John--views which are surprising and controversial coming from a conservative scholar. These include the idea that John invented the sayings "I thirst" and "It is finished" from the cross and the claim that it is impossible to know whether the historical Jesus recognizably uttered the fairly explicit claims to be God that we find in John, and more. If Carson and all the others Licona lists really hold such views of John's Gospel, a Christian conservative audience is more likely to feel that the arguments for these views must be very strong and that they have no choice but to accept them. I have argued directly that these views are false, so regardless of what "big name" holds them, that doesn't mean that we're epistemically required to believe them. But further: The attempt to co-opt Carson is completely illicit, based upon his published writings. Carson *has not* endorsed the views that I have criticized in Licona. Licona uses a quotation from Carson's commentary on John in which Carson says, "John has rewritten the whole" to defend his attempt to co-opt Carson. But the context makes it clear that there Carson is *only* talking about trivial matters of style which need not compromise the *recognizable* historicity, in the very contexts reported, of any of Jesus' teachings. Moreover, on every single one of the other issues where Licona takes a view that would be considered non-conservative (e.g., the day of the crucifixion, the recognizable historicity of the "I am" sayings, and many more), Carson takes the conservative view instead and argues for traditional harmonizing. Even more striking: Carson shows himself well aware of the tendency to slide from discussions of John's style and the way Jesus sounds in John to questioning the recognizable historicity of Jesus' teaching, and he explicitly blocks this slide in passage after passage of his writings, defending instead the view that Jesus recognizably taught and said what John reports on the occasions where John places him. This is as far as possible from the view of John that Licona is endorsing. Here is Carson's commentary on John, available in Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-according-Pillar-Testament-Commentary-ebook/dp/B09151YFSY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2I984OE95ZVM9&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.AmOevBpNCC5z9NrvEvhJsy4vFbwSRZEk_vqv3KHhAJirYtrCG9XGqkI9q-KYSojdTgPFzbrNqPE7XeHuf2xjG68h_22r7E1-jQY_beAbuEcizFigWOB7Z0mf862276nYtxrCaax6E-0Hh9mNHW5Kb3AeYd8JLk8zYcHUdnbo4J8VOcYaSG8RFRQ9CtJBSwtdFVUx2-teDiaSFCNpBP3b-fRQG2v_h-lmRsdAQKEd_zk.HFzIjtn85T8JMzdSJBuDnZSGNKcF1Yij5WnF0YDEYqg&dib_tag=se&keywords=carson+john+commentary&qid=1721312510&sprefix=%2Caps%2C170&sr=8-1 Here is an important article in which Carson discusses these issues: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gp/gp2_tradition_carson.pdf Here is one interview where Licona speaks as if Carson agrees with his controversial views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNUCCeTwCaI Here is the interview where Licona explicitly cites the isolated sentence, "John has rewritten the whole" to co-opt Carson: https://www.youtube.com/live/N5N5snM1PSQ?si=MmflT4Jf_7f-TLJ3&t=7900

In two recent interviews Dr. Michael Licona has attempted to associate a star-studded roster of conservative commentators with his controversial views on the historicity of John's Gospel. At the same time, he implies that those who disagree with him strongly on these matters (which he refers to as "struggling" with and "having difficulty accepting" his views) are simply unaware of things that Johannine scholars, including all of these conservative scholars, have "known" for a long time. In this episode I analyze the various sociological and rhetorical moves being made, such as appeal to authority, implying that anyone who disagrees is merely uninformed, and more. I also point out that if some laymen have not heard of the fact that there are some previously conservative-labeled scholars (but by no means as many as Licona implies) who question the robust historicity of John, this is in part because of a strong taboo in evangelical circles surrounding even *telling* laymen about this in the first place, if one is going to criticize the views of other believers. That means that, if this is now being sprung on you as something you just have to accept, that is very far from a reason for you to trust the self-styled experts. Finally, of course, there is the question of whether, in fact, all of these iconic conservatives actually do agree with Licona's views on John. I will turn to that next time in a detailed discussion of D.A. Carson, whose name Licona invokes by way of a *highly* selective quotation. Here is the exchange to which I'm referring in the video: https://youtu.be/dNUCCeTwCaI?si=kTGTytBoP3_CFv7m&t=3416

Dr. Michael Licona has claimed for several years now, since shortly after Norman Geisler's death, that Geisler said that Matthew moved the Temple cleansing (and hence the cursing of the fig tree) by one day. Others have been led by Licona's confidence to accept this statement without question, even though such a move would be incompatible with a major theme of Geisler's entire life and ministry--namely, the literal inerrancy of the Bible. While I myself am not an inerrantist, I think that this interpretation is unfair to Geisler, particularly when no other option is even suggested as a possible interpretation of the passage in question. Given that New Testament scholarship, both conservative and liberal, has long needed and lacked a concise vocabulary for distinguishing places where an author does not intend to provide a chronological narrative and places where he does so intend (and changes chronology deliberately), it is not surprising that the brief passage in Geisler and Howe's book is somewhat cryptic. I suggest that it is more accurate and fair to Geisler and Howe to interpret them as suggesting what I've called achronological narration on the part of Matthew rather than, as Licona takes it, that they are suggesting dyschronological narration (knowingly and deliberately changing chronology). They appear to be saying that Matthew's narrative could give the accidental impression of a chronology inconsistent with Mark's, but that in fact the two Gospels are harmonizable in a traditional fashion. I think we should call upon anyone who discusses this issue to offer at least the plausibility of this interpretation of Geisler and Howe as an option rather than stating that they are advocating dyschronological narration and then saying that it is "ironic" that Geisler opposed dyschronological narration elsewhere. Here is the passage in their book: https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Matthew_21.12-19_(cf._Mark_11.12-14,_20-24).php Here is the debate at SES just months after Geisler's death in which Licona sprung the alleged gotcha on Geisler. https://youtu.be/rLwnjx6-5dc?si=edvCHP5petU3yECG&t=3582 Here is an earlier blog post I wrote on this topic: https://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2019/10/getting_dr_geisler_right.html

Is it being properly cautious, if experts disagree about something, to choose some intermediate probability for that proposition and treat that as the best that you can do, as a non-expert, at estimating the probability on all the public evidence? Not really. Such false caution can result in giving undue weight to opinions governed by faulty methodology and kept in place by merely sociological forces. In New Testament studies, such false caution also doesn't take due regard to the way that poor standards and methodology have become accepted even by some conservative-labeled scholars, as if they are objectively good standards of the discipline. The anthology I have in mind at about minute 21 is Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Matters-Matter-Faith-Postmodern/dp/1433525712 Craig Blomberg's contribution is titled "A Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism."