One charge leveled against the four gospels is that the writings cannot be trusted because they are written by people who were biased. They clearly believed what they recorded.
In his helpful book The Story of Reality, thinker Greg Koukl addresses this common assertion. He writes:
"Of course, there is a point here, since there is little question the writers genuinely believed the story they told and, therefore, being 'believers,' had a personal interest in the issue. But is this really the liability some imagine it to be? The history of the Holocaust was written largely by its survivors. Should we doubt their accounts simply because these victims were also 'believers' or because they had an 'agenda," an intent to tell the world of this horrific event? I think not...one might argue (ironically) that those Christians could be trusted precisely because they had a stake in the matter, in an odd sort of way - they staked their lives on the Story's accuracy. Who better to preserve the details of Jesus' life than those who knew him best, and who better to trust than those who put everything on the line - their homes, their families, their well-being - for their testimony about him?
Remember, bias can take two different forms. The first has just been mentioned - a point of view, an interest, an agenda. If dismissing reports for this reason were proper procedure, then the study of history would never get off the ground, since virtually everyone in a position to give accurate information has a 'bias' of this sort. No, this kind of bias is largely benign on its own.
Remember, bias can take two different forms. The first has just been mentioned - a point of view, an interest, an agenda. If dismissing reports for this reason were proper procedure, then the study of history would never get off the ground, since virtually everyone in a position to give accurate information has a 'bias' of this sort. No, this kind of bias is largely benign on its own.
A problem arises only when a bias of the first sort leads to a bias of the second sort, that is, a tendency to distort or in some way misrepresent facts for personal gain. But what gain here? What advantage did these writers enjoy by fabricating a fake? Common sense tells us that men will not suffer martyrdom for myths they make up themselves.
In any event, having strong opinions about things that happened simply cannot, by itself, render a person's testimony about them unreliable, and historians know this. They are, of course, on the lookout for bias that distorts - and usually are able to root it out when it exists - but merely having an interest, or an experience, or a stake does not, on its own, disqualify. Those who suspect bias of the second sort must answer two important questions. First, what was the motive to lie or distort? Second, where is the evidence of the distortion? As far as I can tell, there was none of either in [the Gospels].
Though the concern about bias is understandable and completely appropriate to raise, the complaint as offered is not adequate. The charge simply will not hold up unless there is convincing evidence of a distorting bias. That, to my knowledge, has never been demonstrated."1
Koukl is right. It is not enough to point out that a given author holds a bias of some sort. Most authors do and if one were to reject every writer who held a bias, they would end up rejecting most of what has been penned in the past and present. This is clearly absurd.
When it comes to the Gospels, all the evidence we have suggests that the authors sincerely believed the events they recorded and desired to communicate what they had seen and heard so that others could know the truth about Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that they had a "stake in the matter" ought not trouble us and this fact can actually be used to argue in favor of their reliability.2
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. Greg Koukl, The Story of Reality, p. 145-146.
Related Posts
Comments