My Divide-and-Conquer Strategy: QUALIFIED Skeptical Claims

WHERE WE ARE

I have just finished my case for the historical unreliability of the 4th Gospel, showing this skeptical claim to be true:

1. It is very probable that the Gospel of John provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

This is part of a larger case for the historical unreliability of the Gospels in general. 

THREE MORE STRONG SKEPTICAL CLAIMS 

I could continue to knock the Gospels down one at a time, arguing for these three further skeptical conclusions:

2. It is very probable that the Gospel of Luke provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

3. It is very probable that the Gospel of Matthew provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

4. It is very probable that the Gospel of Mark provides a historically unreliable account of the life and words of Jesus.

Establishing these additional skeptical conclusions would destroy any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

THREE QUALIFIED SKEPTICAL CLAIMS

However, that is not how I plan to proceed.  It is not necessary to establish the strong skeptical claims (2), (3), and (4) in order to destroy any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.  Thus, it is OVERKILL to attempt to prove those three additional skeptical claims about the Gospels.

Instead, one can show that there is no chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus by establishing the following qualified skeptical claims about the Gospels:

2A. It is very probable that the events and details in the narratives in the Gospel of Luke that the Gospel of Luke adds to, or modifies, from the narratives in the Gospel of Mark, are historically unreliable.

3A. It is very probable that the events and details in the narratives in the Gospel of Matthew that the Gospel of Matthew adds to, or modifies, from the narratives in the Gospel of Mark, are historically unreliable.

4A. It is very probable that the events and details in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable.

Establishing the skeptical claims (2A) and (3A) would eliminate the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew as potential sources for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, and this would leave the Gospel of Mark as the only potential Gospel source for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

It is not necessary to show that the representations of the teachings of Jesus presented in the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew are historically unreliable, because it is the stories or narratives about events in those Gospels that are needed for building a case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew get most of their narrative material from the Gospel of Mark, we can reduce the scope of skepticism about those two Gospels by focusing exclusively on events and details that the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Matthew add to, or modify, from the Gospel of Mark.  In other words, we can separate out the issue of the historical reliability of the narrative events and details in the Gospel of Mark from the issue of the historical reliability of the narrative events and details that are unique to the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of Matthew.

Once it has been established that the Gospel of Mark is the only potential Gospel source for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, establishing claim (4A) would be GAME OVER for Christian apologetic cases for the resurrection! This would be sufficient to eliminate any chance that a Christian apologist could ever build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

It is not necessary to show that the events and details in narratives throughout the entire Gospel of Mark are historically unreliable. Skeptics only need to show that the Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Mark is historically unreliable, because that would be the only remaining Gospel source for most of the key historical claims needed to build a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus, given that the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of Matthew have been eliminated as potential sources for use in building a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.