Christian apologists claim that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts and therefore can be trusted as accurate, historically reliable descriptions of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Are they right? Should rational, intelligent people always believe eyewitness testimony?
Answer: Of course not.
If Christian apologists really believed this, they would be forced to accept as fact that the eleven Mormon eyewitnesses really did see an angel and/or golden plates. They would be forced to believe that the angel Gabriel really did appear to Mohammad, giving him a new testament from the Creator. They would be forced to believe in the reality of hundreds of Virgin Mary sightings. They would be forced to believe every ghost sighting ever recorded!
The fact is that when it comes to eyewitness testimony involving supernatural claims even Christian apologists are dubious…unless the claim is found in their holy book. So if even Christian apologists are skeptical of most eyewitness testimony involving supernatural claims, why shouldn’t we be skeptical of theirs?
“But, there are good reasons why the eyewitness testimony of the supernatural claims in the Gospels are more credible than the claims of Mormonism, Islam, and all the other world religions,” Christian apologists will then say.
“We have multiple, independent, eyewitness statements of these events.”
No. This is not true. There are no resurrected Jesus sightings in the original Gospel of Mark. Only the author of Matthew records a Jesus appearance to a group of women in the garden in which they grab his feet. Only the author of Luke records a Jesus appearance on the Emmaus Road. Only the author of Luke records an ascension from a mountain near Bethany. Only the author of John records a Jesus appearance and fish fry on the Sea of Tiberius. Only the Gospel of John records a special Jesus appearance for Thomas in which the disciple is asked to inspect Jesus’ wounds. Sure, one can claim that many different sightings occurred, but you cannot claim that there are multiple accounts of the same sighting! These stories describe very different events. Therefore, Christians cannot claim that they have multiple eyewitness statements to the same alleged Jesus sighting.
“The disciples would not die for a lie.”
While it is true that most people will not die for a lie, hundreds of thousands of human beings throughout history have died for a mistaken belief. Is it possible that the disciples truly believed that Jesus had appeared to them, but were mistaken? Cumulative human history says, yes.
“But the attitude and behavior of the disciples changed so dramatically.”
Dramatic conversions and changed lives happen all the time, and not just in Christianity. See here:
“But Christianity grew so dramatically, even under intense persecution.”
And so have many other religions, cults and sects. Today, the followers of Falun Gong suffer intense persecution in China, yet the movement is still growing! This spiritual movement began in the 1990’s and today has seven to twenty million followers. That is much more rapid growth than what occurred with Christianity.
“Christianity became the largest religion on earth! How did that happen if the claims are false?”
This is a logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true. Will Christian apologists admit that Islam is true when and if Islam overtakes Christianity as the world’s most populous religion in the next century, as many statisticians are predicting?
“The eyewitnesses for Islam, Mormonism, and other religions are known liars and persons of questionable character.”
Simon Peter is probably the world’s most famous liar, publicly lying about his association with Jesus three separate times. He was also a short-tempered, impetuous, violent man, allegedly cutting off someone’s ear with a sword. Even after Jesus’ alleged resurrection, Peter’s character was questioned by Paul, as Peter acquiesced to the prejudices of the “Judaizers”. The apostle Paul, a man guilty of murder and violent physical attacks against people whose only crime was holding a different world view from him according to the author of Acts, said in his own epistles that he was willing to say and do almost anything to convert people to his new belief system, Christianity. And to top it off, both men were prone to visions and trances. Not exactly the stereotypes of upstanding citizens and reliable courtroom witnesses.
Conclusion: There is no good reason to believe the supernatural claims of Christianity!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
End of post.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
The application of never-ending criticism by appeals to assumed authorities in “science” is equally questionable since the bar is always set too high by die hard skeptics for any amount of evidence to suffice in scaling those heights. Those who live in such a dark world inevitable betray the hypocrisies in their own belief system, never, of course, admitting to their hypocrisies.
LikeLike
The topic of this post is whether or not we should always believe eyewitness testimony. Care to address this topic?
LikeLike
I did address it…or at least, its root. The REAL agenda motivating that question is extreme skepticism. How does one address what will never become accepted? Besides, my opinion about eye witness testimony acceptance will not lead to anything constructive in this forum.
LikeLike
Extreme skepticism? What evidence would it take for you to believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse in the skies above Jerusalem for a few hours?
LikeLike
The Koran? Really? What evidence is there for that book being reliable? How many buried cities have been discovered as a result of biblical statements? If you think the Koran is reliable, then go for it, but thinking you can compare that book with the Bible is like comparing your mother to a unicorn…
LikeLike
You did not answer my question. I am going to try one more time: What evidence would it take for you to believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse in the skies above Jerusalem for a few hours?
LikeLike
If you had asked what brought me to believe in the biblical eyewitness accounts about the events they record, I would say that the archaeological and historical accuracies, which are well established by historians and archaeologists alike. Even the forensic analysis of the eye witness accounts have shown consistency in content and overall character. The Koran doesn’t even come close with the parts that were not plagiarized by its writers. It’s filled with half-finished stories…some cutting off in the middle, and others starting in the middle, leaving its followers with no real sense of completeness apart from the story of Joseph.
So, in reality, your questions is self-defeating question. It’s called “sophistic.” Asking what it would take to believe in what I know is false is completely self-defeating. Ask about something plausible, and we can talk.
LikeLike
Plausible?
Okay. What evidence can you present to demonstrate the veracity of the bible claim of the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth?
LikeLike
The apologists who claim that the gospels are four independent sources must have rather flimsy criteria for “independence.” First, there is extensive evidence that the authors of Luke and Matthew plagiarized from Mark but didn’t acknowledge this. Second, are we really to believe that in the decades between the time of Jesus’ death and the stories being written down that the supposed eyewitnesses never talked to any other eyewitnesses, or added details based on other oral stories that were in circulation?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good points, Bill.
LikeLike
Comment regarding this post from Eddie, Christian blogger: Greetings Gary and thank you for reading my post and for your invitation to comment/debate you (?) on your website. I read what you had to say in your blog, but I’m not convinced by your argument. You are welcome to believe as you wish. It is your God-given right. It would be ludicrous for me to attempt to change your mind. No doubt you believe it would be wise to believe as you do, why else would you say the things you say in your argument? Anyway, thanks for dropping by, and have a good day.
LikeLike
Hi Eddie. Thank you for your polite response.
The bigger question is: Is there any good evidence that the supernatural operates in our universe? Much of the sectarianism, violence, and war in our world is based on religion (belief in the supernatural). If the supernatural is not active in our world, shouldn’t the people of the world know this? Wouldn’t such information be extremely useful for how we treat our fellow human beings?
Your beliefs may be very comforting for you, Eddie. Most religious people, of all religions, find great comfort and security in their “faith”. But what is the trade off for your fellow human beings for your personal comfort and sense of security?
Bottom line: Humanity needs to know, one way or the other, if the supernatural operates in our world. Christianity says it does. Christianity says they have eyewitness evidence to supernatural events. I say that if one looks at the Christian evidence using good critical thinking skills, the evidence for these claims is very, very poor.
I hope that you and your readers will at least keep an open mind to the possibility that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.
LikeLike
Eddie?
LikeLike
Ignore, I was reading comments in the wrong order. My bad.
LikeLike
I was asked to respond to this article by a reader of Bellator Christi. The article seems to accept a few false assumptions about the Gospel texts. First, there are very good reasons for believing that the authors of the Gospels (called Evangelists) are indeed who the early Christians believed them to be. Quite honestly, writing projects were quite expensive in the CE first-century times. Craig Keener avers that a document the size of the Gospel of Mark would have cost the equivalent of around $3,000. It would have taken a collaborative group effort to raise the funds needed to produce such a work. If such were the case, then the early church would have assuredly known who authored such a cherished book. Longer texts such as the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke would have cost substantially more. The Gospels made their way through geographical regions of the church to the point that early canons almost always contained all the canonical Gospels.
Additionally, and even more importantly, the work of my doctoral dissertation is based on evidence of early oral traditions found in the Gospel of Matthew. I was shocked to find that the Gospel of Matthew is replete with examples of early traditions. These traditions would have been based on eyewitness testimony, even if they did not arise from the Evangelists themselves. Middle Eastern cultures often pass along important traditions through the communities. Surprisingly, community-based efforts to preserve traditions have proven quite effective. Traditions have been preserved for countless generations without changing any major detail of the story. Obviously, there is some degree of flexibility on certain issues. It just so happens to be the Gospel of Matthew matches the same kind of patterns one would expect to find in a society like the one mentioned.
If the problem is with the supernatural elements of the eyewitness testimony, then one only needs to consider the numerous stories of miracles found across the globe. Here again, I need to mention the name of Craig Keener. Keener wrote a two-volume book investigating cases of miracles worldwide. The series is aptly named “Miracles.”
To conclude, in my estimation, you not only have some eyewitness testimony in the Gospels of Matthew and John, but you also have the eyewitness testimonies of the community preserved in all four Gospel accounts. If you would like to read my dissertation, it can be found online. However, I am working to update this material to have it published in book form very soon. Here is the link if you’re interested: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/3874/ There are other things that could be mentioned. But I think this should suffice for now.
Blessings,
Dr. Brian Chilton
https://bellatorchristi.com
LikeLike
Thank you for your response, Dr. Chilton.
Let’s set aside the fact that the eyewitness status of the Gospels is hotly disputed even among Christian Bible scholars. The big question is: Should we ALWAYS believe eyewitness testimony?
Many religions, sects, and cults all over the world claim that individuals and groups of people have witnessed supernatural phenomena involving their gods. Thousands of Hindus claimed to have witnessed Hindu idols drinking milk offered to them on September 21, 1995. On August 21, 1879 dozens of residents of Knock, Ireland claimed to have witnessed the appearance of the Virgin Mary, several saints, and angels. They claimed that the appearance lasted for several hours. And of course, there are the Mormon eyewitnesses who signed legal affidavits stating that they had seen an angel and/or golden plates. Should we believe all these eyewitness claims too? If not, why? What criteria should we use to believe eyewitness testimony?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for your follow-up, Gary. All very good questions. Historical researchers have established several criteria for assessing the validity of eyewitness claims. You are right in noting that a person should not simply accept eyewitness testimony blindly. Crime scene detectives use the same kind of approaches to test the truthfulness of eyewitness reports. Criteria such as enemy testimony, multiple eyewitness testimony, consistency, the believability of the witnesses, and the age and location of reports (i.e., was the eyewitness in the area and was he/she old enough to have been there) are all considered when gauging testimonies of historical events. Now, to the reports that you mentioned, each testimony should be evaluated on the basis of these and other historical criteria. Have numerous people witnessed odd and/or bizarre events over the course of time? Yes, absolutely. What we make of them depends on each case. When it comes to the NT Gospels, several things must be considered:
1) The early Christians had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
2) The resurrection was something that was anticipated at the last time, not something that would happen within three days of the Messiah’s death.
3) While there are some differences, the eyewitness reports of the NT Gospels correlate well on the major details of Jesus’s life, especially the Passion narratives.
4) The early Christians were willing to give up their statuses and even give their lives for something they knew they witnessed.
5) The number of eyewitnesses were in the 100s if not thousands.
6) The eyewitness claims of his resurrection derived in the same area that Jesus had been condemned and crucified publicly.
7) The location of Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb would have been known to almost everyone due to his high public status.
8) The traditions undergirding the Gospels are very early, to the same level and degree of the NT creeds.
These are just some of the things that corroborate the NT Gospel accounts.
Blessings,
Dr. Brian Chilton
LikeLike
Interesting points, Dr. Chilton. What would you say to a university educated member of the public who has no bias against the supernatural who says this:
Dr. Chilton, isn’t it possible that the disciples sincerely believed Jesus had appeared to them when he hadn’t? Cumulative human history tells us that human beings have frequently sincerely believed they have seen a dead person when in fact they most likely experienced an illusion, such as seeing a bright light, or had a vivid dream/daytime trance, or experienced an hallucination. There are sincere people today who claim that Jesus has appeared to them. You can see their eyewitness statements on the internet.
It is true that groups of people cannot have the same hallucination, but groups of people can experience the same illusion. So it is entirely possible that the disciples sincerely believed they had seen a resurrected Jesus but had not. What if all the original sightings of Jesus involved people seeing bright lights, as the author of Acts describes Paul’s experience, and the later stories of a walking, talking corpse are embellishments?
You may respond that the stories of a walking, talking, broiled fish eating resurrected Jesus are eyewitness accounts, but many other experts disagree with you. How strong is eyewitness testimony if a significant percentage of experts dispute their eyewitness status. Conservatives such as yourself may allege bias on the part of the experts who disagree with you, but they will allege bias on your part: Without eyewitness testimony, the believability of your entire worldview takes a major credibility hit.
You are a very educated theologian, Dr. Chilton, but you are not a textual critic of ancient Near East literature. Why should modern, educated people trust your opinion that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts when many New Testament scholars, including Christian scholars who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, question or reject the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels? Don’t we learn in our university education to trust majority expert opinion, and when the experts are divided, such as on this issue, to withhold judgment?
LikeLike
Imagine a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is the best conceivable evidence that a man once rose from the dead. What kind of evidence would it take to approach 100 in my mind? It would take clinical evidence, from many independent physicians (vital signs, etc.), that the man had in fact died. It would take video evidence from multiple independent cameras showing the man rising from the dead, corroborated by reports from many credible witnesses who were there and saw it with their own eyes. DNA evidence confirming that that man who rose was in fact the same man who died. Where do items #1-8 on your evidence list get me? Maybe to 1 out of 100, at best? It is embarrassingly weak evidence, not even remotely close to what it would take for me to believe such a thing happened 2000 years ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are exactly right, Bill. We need better evidence than just individuals and groups of people claiming that they saw a dead person. History is full of dead person sighting claims. But Christians have an even bigger problem: The eyewitness status of their alleged eyewitness statements (the Gospels) are disputed by the experts! Imagine an attorney trying to admit as evidence alleged written eyewitness testimony which many maybe even the majority of experts suspect to not come from eyewitnesses! Would a judge even admit such statements into evidence??
LikeLike
That would be nice to have for sure. But with historical matters, the best we have are probablilities built from a cumulative case. To your point, DNA is amazing! I recently took a DNA test and learned a great deal about my ancestry.
LikeLike
But should the lay Christian in the pew and other non-experts in the general public be calculating “probabilities” regarding the authorship of four 2,000 year old Near East texts?? Wouldn’t the more rational, logical option be to defer to the experts on the authorship of the Gospels? If we do that, the fact is: the experts are divided on the authorship of these ancient texts, which means that the eyewitness status of stories about people seeing, talking to, and touching a resurrected corpse are disputed! These stories may not come from eyewitnesses. Bottom line: We cannot be 100% certain that the resurrection appearance stories are eyewitness accounts.
And disputed eyewitness testimony is not strong evidence, Dr. Chilton. When the experts are divided on an issue, most educated people today withhold judgment on the issue in question. Since the eyewitness status of the Gospels is disputed among the experts, the rational decision is to withhold judgment on the historicity of the resurrection: The rational decision is to NOT believe that this event occurred.
LikeLike
Dr. Chilton,
regarding your assertion of the high cost of written projects in the first century, and that therefore the author would have been known to the collaborative group, what would that mean for the dozens of gospels, acts, epistles, apocalypses etc that were written yet rejected by other Christians as forgeries for entry into the canon? I doubt the cost of their creation in probably the second and third centuries would be much lower, so wouldn’t that mean quite a few Christians were collaborating and financing all these dozens of forgeries – and they would know they were forgeries. Can one infer from this that the first century writings could have similar traits and circumstances regarding their creation?
LikeLike
Great question! Most likely, these writings likely arose from communities that held certain unique doctrines that differed from the mainstay doctrines of the church. Interestingly, many of these documents derive from the canonical Gospels, or they tweaked traditions already circulated by the Christian community. My understanding is that many early texts of the Gospels had the name of the author on the outside of the book. If true, the canonical Gospels would not necessarily be anonymous.
LikeLike
Dr. Chilton,
Can you direct me to a source that says many of the early texts of the Gospels had the name of the author on the outside of the book?
LikeLike