Many unbelievers have dismissed the testimony of the Biblical writers regarding the resurrection of Jesus on the basis that these witnesses are Christians. They argue that as Christians, the Biblical authors were biased to believe in the resurrection, making their testimony unreliable. Greg Koukl discussed the merits of this argument on his radio broadcast many years ago. I would like to share some of his ideas with you, as well as add a few of my own.
This objection presumes that rational objectivity is impossible if one has taken a position on a matter (in this case, the resurrection of Jesus Christ), but this ignores the fact that rational objectivity may be what led these individuals to believe in the resurrection in the first place. The evidence could have been so strong in favor of that conclusion that they were incapable of remaining intellectually honest without affirming that Jesus rose from the dead.
Furthermore, this standard works both ways. Those who deny the resurrection have taken a position on the matter. If taking a position eliminates objectivity, and hence trustworthiness, then we should dismiss the evidence against Christ’s resurrection presented by those who deny it. Their belief that Jesus was not raised from the dead makes their testimony against it unreliable. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
It also ignores the fact that those who are psychologically biased (i.e. have come to a conclusion) are still capable of rational objectivity. If that were not so, none of us would ever change our mind about anything we have come to believe. Clearly we have, and thus psychological bias does not preclude rational objectivity. Another way of saying this is that psychological objectivity (i.e. having formed no conclusions) is not a prerequisite for rational objectivity.
Secondly, it presumes that objective evidence for the resurrection of Jesus could only come from those who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. But if one does not believe Jesus rose from the dead, why would they present evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? If they had objective evidence for the resurrection, presumably they would believe in the resurrection and become Christian. The moment they became Christian, however, the critics would claim that they are biased and their evidence can no longer be considered objective. Can you imagine this standard being applied to any other topic? What if I said the only valid, objective evidence for global warming must come from opponents of global warming? That is nonsensical. We would expect the evidence for global warming to come from those who are convinced that it is a real phenomenon. The same is true of the resurrection of Jesus.
The skeptics have set up an impossible, self-serving standard, and then claim victory when it cannot be met. Don’t take the bait. The testimony of those who believe in the resurrection is valid evidence, and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
Thinking to Believe 
May 17, 2022 at 10:24 am
bias is a very important factor to take into account — but the bias regarding the Resurrection is ………… every one that denies it occurred does so because they “know” the dead dont resurrect. so they come up with everything to argue against it ………….. in this case the argument is bias.
but the evidence for bias in this case is laughable ………… because His followers gave up.
where bias comes into play is in biblical interpretation ……….. each group spins the bible to fit their belief system. very few follow the bible even if it proves them wrong. that’s why many use bible verse against bible verse instead of getting to the bottom meaning of what each verse is trying to say.
LikeLike
May 17, 2022 at 12:33 pm
“Many unbelievers have dismissed the testimony of the Biblical writers regarding the resurrection of Jesus on the basis that these witnesses are Christians.”
I’ve known a lot of atheists over the decades, and not even one has ever made that claim. So I think it’s safe to say the argument is a straw man.
The argument that you will definitely hear, though, is why should anyone believe that the biblical resurrection is true? Just because the Bible SAYS there were witnesses? Should that really be enough to convince anyone?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and simple testimony isn’t nearly enough for extraordinary claims. People lie, misinterpret and hallucinate literally every day all over the world. And even if they believe their own claims that doesn’t mean we should. We have people today who claim they’ve been abducted by aliens, and there are religions today that claim their gods are living among us today whom you can even meet in the flesh. Do you believe their testimony?
If testimony of people alive today isn’t good enough to justify extraordinary belief, what justification is there for believing extraordinary claims by second- and third-hand parties that are 2,000 years old and muddled by time, translations and the continual evolution of words?
While it’s true some of the claims in the Bible are definitely true—like the names of certain cities and some facts about the Roman Empire—those are mundane claims that don’t suggest that any of the supernatural claims are true. After all, Spider-Man and Daredevil comics take place in New York City, which we can verify exists, yet the existence of NYC isn’t evidence that superheroes exist, right?
So it’s not bias that is the problem with the resurrection claim, it’s the lack of any independent extraordinary evidence to support the claim that’s the problem. (And no, arguments are not evidence.)
If you want to know what atheists think, well, ask some atheists. You’ll find the answers aren’t what you’ve been taught.
LikeLike
May 17, 2022 at 3:24 pm
“independent extraordinary evidence” ……….. lmao. that’s the bias TR is talking about.
lol ……. no one that witnessed the risen Lord didnt become a Christian. and no deniers at the time offered any evidence it didnt occur. only silly stories not supported by any facts —- His body was stolen or He didnt die.
LikeLike
May 18, 2022 at 9:35 am
What you mean is that the Bible doesn’t tell any stories of anyone who saw the risen Lord who didn’t become a Christian and it doesn’t tell any stories about deniers offering evidence that the resurrection didn’t occur. Those are terribly weak arguments from silence.
In order for an argument from silence to be persuasive, you must show that you would expect there to be a record of the thing that is not recorded. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect the Bible to report about people who didn’t become Christian or about people offering evidence to refute the resurrection.
LikeLike
May 18, 2022 at 3:28 pm
not weak at all ……….. the change in how the apostles acted is a very strong argument for the Resurrection. the only reason that makes sense is Jesus did rise from the dead.
LikeLike