In our age of what seems like endless information constantly bombarding our brains, we have a unique challenge in all of human history: A colossal, technology-driven infrastructure that both empowers and rips apart intellectual pursuits. Hence why the topic of objective truth versus subjective truth is one of the most, if not the most, important conversation that we need to have – and resolve – right NOW.
The heavy hitter topics – politics, social ideologies, and religion – are the primary targets in public discourse, largely thanks to how social media is used and now severely abused.
That said, let’s talk about religion. Specifically, Christianity. More specifically, the Bible. And even more specifically, the authors of the Gospels.
Based on recent comments I have received on this channel, and via email exchanges with spiritual-but-not-religious seekers, semi-fallen away Christians, and atheists, I am addressing a claim that has gained a lot of traction in recent years: The Apostles were either not the authors of the Gospels, or the Apostles embellished the Gospels to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, or that perhaps the Gospels are just works of literature by ancient academics. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman have helped perpetuate these claims, and some seekers and skeptics hold Ehrman’s scholarship as gospel truth. (Pun firmly intended).
Brent Pitre, one of my favorite Catholic apologists, thoroughly refutes these claims in his book, “The Case for Jesus”. In addition, in the video linked below, Pitre explains why both internal (within the Bible) and external evidence point to the actual Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Gospel authors.
But let’s explore this topic in more detail. First, when making the claim that the Apostles possibly embellished what Jesus said, we can apply this argument to just about every area of life, including ALL historical accounts about ALL historical figures. This then leads us to what can we really *know* — What is truly, well, true?
Or how about this: How do you *know* it’s me, Chris, who is responding to the comments and messages I receive? What if I have a secretary who answers my messages for me and knows how to imitate my writing tone? How do I know you are not embellishing anything when you send me a message? And vice versa?
In other words, after awhile, this path can fast devolve into a fruitless exercise; it just leaves us in a perpetual state of analysis paralysis — for pretty much the rest of our lives. And sure, we can do that: My friends and family have coined me as a chronic overthinker. But then what? Which leads to my next thought:
*Is *anything* that Jesus said — or supposedly said — NOT true? When you read the Gospels, do you disagree with anything that Jesus taught? Keep in mind here that we are not talking about Jesus being figurative in parables and some expressions (for instance, Jesus doesn’t really want you to cut off your hand if it contributes to being sinful). The bottom line is this: Does Christ’s message for us speak the TRUTH? Or if you were to follow — to the letter — exactly how Christ / the Gospels teach us to live, would it be a waste of your life? Would you feel cheated about your existence?
Not to suggest that we should just live by Pascal’s Wager, or never ask questions, or never be a skeptic. Just that when we hit the bottom of the proverbial rabbit hole, some questions don’t have a titanium armored answer. This applies to other areas of life as well.
For instance, I have a chronic medical condition. For years, I relentlessly questioned every doctor I saw; I asked every “what if” question imaginable; I did mountains of research and kept fire hosing physicians with it: “There has to be an answer!” “What about this <fill in the blank> article?” “What about this <fill in the blank> medication?” And so on and so forth.
Then, one time, while I was firing questions away at yet another doctor, he answered me just like this: We have come a long way in medicine, and there are many things we do know well” – but the reality is we sometimes have to say, “We just don’t know. We don’t have a microscopically specific answer to provide”.
I know that’s not a satisfying answer to many people — especially skeptics — but it *IS* the nature of our reality. Therefore, and as Brent Pitre, points out, we examine all of the evidence we do have, and we decide based on that.
From there, we either choose to live by the decision or we don’t. It really does then become a binary decision: Accept or don’t accept. It doesn’t mean you have to stop thinking — but it does mean this question: How much thinking will it take for you to have a completely satisfactory answer? Or what if we go with what we DO know? And if we see it as *truth* — and it is well corroborated — why not believe it?
Now, how about Bart Ehrman’s take on the Apostles, that there is most likely no way that any of them could have written the Gospels, and that the Gospels are nothing more than interesting literature from ancient history. Well, there are holes in Ehrman’s assertions — many of which have been refuted by other scholars, and not just by Catholic scholars.
And let’s take this a step further: How do we “know” Bart Ehrman is right? How do we know that opposing scholars are wrong? What exact research has done to weigh both sides of the argument? Are we including peer-reviewed, published refutations from both sides?
In the meantime — I agree, the Gospels ARE a work of literature. However, so are ALL other books in the Bible. As many of you may already know, the Bible – including the New Testament — contains various genres. And as we understand from the Catechism, and from the centuries of consistent theology from the early Church Fathers, we can use four key components to reading and interpreting Scripture: Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical.
Now, that doesn’t necessarily refute that the Gospels, for instance, were not fabricated to some degree. However, textual criticism is NOT as simple as identifying something as literature and then proclaiming, “Aha! These are just nice, made–up stories after all!”
No, it is a bit more complex than that. And though this may sound like a special pleading fallacy, or confirmation bias, the “literature” of the Bible is not quite apples-to-apples when compared with all other literature in the world.
For starters, name just one other book, or collection of books, in existence, which has such a wide array of genres? Or that is so heavily threaded with allegory — that is, typology that connects with all other allegories in all other stories related to the central story (Christ)? Or that follows a particular group of people over thousands of years and bridges literal, moral, spiritual teaching throughout those thousands of years?
Now, about the Gospels themselves and their authorship: While Bart Ehrman has contributed some important food for thought to Bible scholarship, we must be careful with how much we rely on arguments from authority — especially if we are not including other authorities in the conversation.
Take the Early Church Fathers, for example: While they agreed on several key points about Christian theology, they also disagreed on some topics. That included wrangling with the various heresies that sprouted up and then fell apart within the first few centuries after Christ’s death and Resurrection. Moreover, we have plenty of ancient works, as well as mountains of modern scholarship, that show different approaches to theological arguments and what we can potentially accept as true or false.
Once upon a time, when I was a strident atheist, I had arrived at the same conclusion that Ehrman has. And as you may already know from watching my videos, I took an even bigger leap forward and began to believe that Jesus probably did not exist at all: that he was just a product of Jewish angelology, and the Gospel authors were skilled Greek scholars who studied Herodotus and therefore knew how to write wildly elaborate stories about “savior gods”.
But then my understanding of the scholarship was shredded to bits: It just doesn’t hold water when all sides of the argument are holistically weighed.
Now, here is the sort of irony about that: Bart Ehrman is vehemently against the Jesus mythicist theory — yet he uses much of the same approach to his scholarship as the prominent mythicists do. And when they call him out on it, he often deflects their arguments, or just reduces them to “no serious academic believes that”
Therefore, I ask again: WHO is right? WHOM do we trust?
As Brent Pitre mentions in the video below, we have numerous resources to weigh the internal versus external evidence. And from that, we can also decide if we accept the overarching message as TRUTH.
Or here is yet another angle: What if, in fact, the Gospels are embellished accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings? Would it prove that Jesus is not God? Would it prove that the Gospel writers had a manipulative agenda? Would it cement that the Apostles did not write the Gospels? Would it mean Bart Ehrman has done the ultimate mic drop on Christianity?
The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO. And why is the answer NO? Because even if we see similarities between the Bible and other literature out there, or because we know that we humans are fully capable of embellishing stories, it doesn’t mean we can take a purely reductionist approach to all literature.
Which is partly why I like to teach Scripture, and literature in general, from a psychological perspective. Namely, the Bible explores the deepest depths of the human condition. Therefore, it is not just a work of literature: It is a 73-book mirror of human life and all of the hardships, doubts, philosophies, triumphs, failures, tough conversations, relationship struggles, and spiritual battles that go along with it.
But it doesn’t stop there: The Bible is also a typologically driven manifesto — in all 73 books — that entirely points to Christ and our Salvation. Furthermore, Trent Horn’s book, “Hard Sayings”, gives a holistic list of rules to keep in mind when reading Scripture. Many of the rules can even apply to reading most other forms of literature.
Ultimately, if you are a seeker or skeptic, you have the right to your own conclusions. However, always make sure those conclusions are as well-founded as possible — and hopefully based on a solid, multivariate approach to textual and historical criticism.
https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/were-the-gospels-really-anonymous