The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

II.B.1. – Who Wrote the Gospels?

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, 

Actually, yes, it is. If the authors are unknown, it damages the credibility of what is supposed to be an eye-witness account. 

Uh...no. All that matters is that we determine whether the authors wrote early, had access to inside information, desired to write accurate history and did so. If that was done by an actual apostle, then so much the better.

it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

Actually, no. Eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence in a court of law and of no value whatsoever in science. Furthermore, this statement conflates eye-witness testimony with hearsay testimony (reporting what someone else heard or saw), the latter being totally inadmissible in a court of law. [/quote]

So, which is it, DP?

Is it really critical that the gospels be written by an eye-witness as you first said? Or is it that "Eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence" as you have just said?

If eye-witness testimony is the weakest, then it shouldn't really matter who those weak witnesses were, should it?

But this is another example of you trying to have it both ways.

Now to be fair, I gave you quite a bit of time when I responded - no, destroyed - your "Occam's Razor" post(s).

You had your chance. Now, you need to let the other children have a turn.