Aren't the Gospels biased?
Yes, in the sense that every witness has a stake. Nobody writes at length about an execution they were present at without caring. But having an interest is not the same as lying, and no court dismisses a witness for being affected by what they saw. You test the testimony instead — which is exactly what historians do.
The objection is short and it feels decisive: of course the Gospels say Jesus rose — they were written by his followers.
It is worth taking seriously, and then noticing that it proves more than anyone wants it to.
Where the standard leads
Apply it consistently. Almost everything we know about the ancient world was written by someone with a stake.
Roman histories were written by Romans, usually connected to the families involved. The Holocaust is documented in enormous part by survivors, who are not neutral about it and could not be. Nobody proposes discarding their testimony on that basis.
The reason is that we do not, in fact, believe that caring about something makes you a liar. If we did, there would be no history at all, because the people present at events are exactly the people affected by them.
Bias and dishonesty are different things
This is the distinction the objection collapses.
Bias is having a perspective and a stake. Everybody has one. A detective takes a statement from a victim’s family knowing perfectly well they are not disinterested.
Dishonesty is inventing what did not happen. That is a separate accusation and it needs separate evidence.
No investigator dismisses a witness for the first. They cross-examine — and that is available here too.
What you can test instead
Four questions, the ones used on any testimony:
Were they in a position to know? The claims are made in the city where it happened, within the lifetime of people who were there.
Does anything corroborate it? Roman and Jewish writers with no sympathy for Christianity confirm the existence, the execution under Pilate, and the movement that followed.
Did the story stay stable? The core account appears in a formula Paul says he received and passed on, datable to within a few years of the events, and it matches what the later Gospels say.
And does the account contain material that damages the witnesses? This is the one that does the most work.
The details nobody with an agenda includes
If you are constructing a story for advantage, you leave certain things out.
The disciples are consistently stupid — missing the point, arguing about who is greatest, falling asleep at the worst moment. Peter, who becomes the leader, denies knowing Jesus three times, and it is in every Gospel. They all run away at the arrest. Jesus’s own family thinks he is out of his mind. The first witnesses of the resurrection are women, whose testimony was worth nothing in a court of the period.
And Jesus is recorded saying things the early church found difficult, including that he did not know the day or the hour.
None of that helps anybody. Historians call this the criterion of embarrassment, and it is one of the reasons the accounts read as reporting rather than as promotion.
Objections answered
Then why isn't there a hostile account of the same events?
There is a little — the Talmud’s reference to the execution, Tacitus, Pliny — and in general very little survives from any first-century provincial dispute. What we do have is the earliest hostile explanation of the empty tomb, which conceded the tomb and argued about how it got that way.
Believers can be sincere and still wrong.
Entirely, and that is the strongest form of this. Sincerity gets you honesty, not accuracy — which is why the hallucination and misidentification theories exist and deserve answering on their own terms. But that is a different objection from they made it up, and mixing the two is how this argument usually goes wrong.
The Gospels were written decades later, by which point memory drifts.
Twenty to sixty years, in a culture that trained memory formally and transmitted teaching orally with care — and while people who had been present were alive to object. Paul’s earliest summary is inside five years. That is not a long gap by the standards of ancient history.
Shared ground, and where traditions differ
All Christians hold
All the traditions hold that the Gospels are testimony — written by people who believed, precisely because of what they had seen — and none has ever claimed they were written by neutral observers.
Related questions
Inspired by Cold Case Christianity — "How Can We Trust the Gospel Accounts If They Were Written by Christians?". The argument is theirs; the words here are ours.
Did this answer the question?