The Silver Stake for Fundamentalist Christianity is Debunking the Eyewitness Authorship of the Gospels.

Mail this Text to Every Conservative Christian Pastor and Apologist You Know:


Image result for image of silver stake over a vampire

If the Evidence for the Eyewitness Authorship of the Gospels is as Good as Conservative Christian Apologists Claim, why do Even Most Roman Catholic Scholars Reject It?

Many conservative Christian apologists will admit that most New Testament scholars today reject the claim that eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses authored the Gospels.  Yet at the same time, these conservative Christian apologists continue to tell their lay Christian reading public that the evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is good, even better than good, it is “strong”.  They claim in their books and on their blogs that the lay Christian can be confident in the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus because the stories told about this alleged event come from reliable eyewitness sources:  the four Gospels of the New Testament.  How do they explain this disparity?

The following statement by an online conservative Christian blogger sums it up:

When it comes to the gospels, there are huge double standards. They are often presumed to be guilty until proven innocent. Normal ways of doing history seemingly get thrown out the window. And a big example of this is when it comes to the debate [regarding the] authorship of the gospels.  We have very good external evidence that the gospels were written by the names traditionally ascribed to them — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Why would New Testament scholars have a double standard regarding the authorship of the Gospels?  Is it because most NT scholars have a bias against Christianity?  That seems hardly possible since most New Testament scholars identify as “Christian”.  So why?  Many conservative Christian apologists allege that even though most NT scholars identify as Christian, a large percentage of them are liberals, and according to these apologists most liberal Bible scholars do not believe in the historicity of the miracles in the Gospels and are dubious of supernatural claims in general.

Is this true?  If so, that would be good evidence that the majority scholarly opinion on the authorship of the Gospels may very well be based on a bias.  But there is a problem!  It isn’t just liberals who hold this view.  Most Roman Catholic New Testament scholars hold this view!  Most Roman Catholic New Testament scholars reject the claim that eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels.  Can anyone credibly claim that most Roman Catholic scholars have a bias against the supernatural or that they use a double standard for evaluating the historicity of ancient Christian texts?

Read the following statements from probably one of the most respected Roman Catholic NT scholars of our time, Raymond E. Brown:

Jesus did not write an account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account.  Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of which were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations.  That intervening pre-Gospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content.  When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus himself, we are speculating.  The Death of the Messiah, pp. 4-5

 I have already said that I do not think of the evangelists themselves as eyewitnesses of the passion; nor do I think that eyewitness memories of Jesus came down to the evangelists without considerable reshaping and development.   The Death of the Messiah, p. 14


And here is a statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew:

 The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel [Matthew] have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following:  The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.    from the USCCB website

Dear conservative Christian apologists:  How can the evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels be “strong” if so many New Testament scholars who very much believe in the supernatural, miracles, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus reject this claim?  How can you continue to tell your reading and listening audiences about the “very good” quality of the evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels faced with this fact?  The truth is that with few exceptions, the only NT scholars who hold to the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels are evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants.  Now, who seems to be operating from a bias?

You owe your Christian readers the truth.  The evidence for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is not strong, in fact, it is weak.  And if the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is in doubt, how can anyone claim that the evidence for the Resurrection is strong or even good?  Believe in this alleged supernatural event by blind faith, if you wish, but please stop telling children and uninformed, gullible adults that there is good evidence for it.

There is not.




End of blog post.



6 thoughts on “The Silver Stake for Fundamentalist Christianity is Debunking the Eyewitness Authorship of the Gospels.

  1. Interesting coincidence. I posted the following about half an hour after you posted this, mostly excepts from the USCCB website:

    I don’t know if I’ll ever get over how many conservative Christians insist that the gospels represent eyewitness writings, written shortly after the events in question, when a very strong majority of scholars completely disagrees with them.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. We need to get the word out! Most lay conservative Christians are unaware of these facts. I strongly suspect that if many conservative lay Christians knew just how weak the evidence is for the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels, and therefore, for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, their “faith” would be severely shaken—hopefully shaken enough to wake them from their supernatural delusions!

      I am currently watching a soccer game and at the same time doing google searches on my computer for “resurrection of Jesus, christian blogs, 2019” or similar terms. I click on any Christian blog that comes up, see if they accept emails, and if they do, I send a copy of the above post to them. (The post is too long to leave as a comment on the blog.)

      We have the truth on our side! We are involved in one of the greatest movements in human history: the debunking of religious superstitions!


      1. We have the truth on our side!

        Maybe we do, but it doesn’t really matter from my point of view. What we definitely have, on our side, is reasonableness. There’s nothing reasonable about believing that some guy rose from dead (something we do not even know to be possible) because a bunch of people believed it. In the end, that’s all that Christians have: A bunch of claims.

        The people who believed they saw Jesus may have been justified in their beliefs about him, but I don’t see how any of us today can be. Jesus apparently had no problem appearing to various people after his death, but that doesn’t provide any justification for me, or frankly anyone else, today.


  2. “Fundamentalist Christianity”—those branches of Christianity which teach that non-Christians will be punished in some fashion by the Christian god for their non-belief.


  3. Today, I sent 20 copies of this post to twenty theology and history professors at Concordia University, Irvine, an LCMS Lutheran college. Let’s see if any of them choose to come onto the blog to comment on this issue. (I’m not holding my breath.) Over the next several weeks and months I intend to send a copy of this post to faculty members at other conservative Protestant and evangelical Christian colleges and universities.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s