A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars

Modern atheists often say that “a majority of scholars…” say certain things regarding the reliability of the Bible. When we press these individuals on precisely who these scholars are, we find that they are most often liberal scholars who do not believe God exists in the first place.

We might wonder why a person would seek an advanced degree in Biblical studies, only to spend their life and work trying to impeach the Bible. In many cases, these persons claim to have once been a Christian but after their seminary training they could no longer believe the Bible was true.

Jesus described people who begin as believers but later fall away as falling into three categories: 1). Those who fall away due to persecution. 2).Those who fall away because of the pursuit of things in the world. 3). Those who fall away due to the trials and difficulties of this life. Jesus taught this principle in the Parable of the Four Soils.

Jesus also said that in the Christian church, the devil has planted false believers who looks and sound like true believers. They work from within the church to undermine and hurt the faith of other believers. Jesus taught this principle in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.

John wrote in his later letters that those who leave the Christian church, never really were a part of the church in the first place. If they were, they would have remained.

The bottom line in answering whey some people achieve a degree in Biblical studies but use their knowledge to discredit and undermine the Bible, is really simple. They never were believers in Christ from the beginning. They are used by the devil to work against Christ. Their entire premise is to make people think that they have the knowledge and education to know that the Bible is not true, and no person should trust it. The reality is that the entire Bible is absolutely reliable and tells one integrated story about a Savior who is promised in Genesis 3:15, promises redemption to all people by faith in Genesis 15, Arrives at Bethlehem as a baby in the New Testament, proceeds to fulfill all the Hebrew prophecies set forth for the Messiah. The Old and New Testament work together to tell this single story of one man, who is known to us today as Jesus, the Messiah.

This page is provided to give the reader a partial list of those who hold the traditional, conservative view of the Bible that is it true, reliable, and inspire by God. The second list represents the minor category of those who do not believe any of the fundamental tenets of the Bible and work to impeach it in the world. For those trained in the Bible, it is quite easy to impeach the impeachers. The text of the Bible is the authority, for it comes to us through antiquity, tested by thousands before us and found reliable and accurate.

The ratio of conservative scholars to liberal scholars is about 90 percent to 10 percent. Some estimates are that less than 7 percent of the total population of Biblical Scholars are liberal.

List of Conservative Scholars

  1. Joseph Alexanian, Trinity International University
  2. Carl E. Armerding, Schloss Mittersill Study Centre
  3. Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary
  4. David Baker, Ashland Theological Seminary
  5. William H. Barnes, North Central University
  6. Ronald A. Beers, Wheaton College
  7. Linda Belleville, Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana
  8. Barry J. Beitzel, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  9. Daniel I. Block, Wheaton College
  10. Gerald Borchert, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary
  11. Dale A. Brueggemann, Assemblies of God Division of Foreign Missions
  12. Robert Bergen, Hannibal-LaGrange College
  13. Darrell Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary
  14. F. F. Bruce, University of Manchester
  15. Frederic W. Bush, Fuller Theological Seminary
  16. Joyce Baldwin Caine, Trinity College, Bristol
  17. Greg Beale, Westminster Theological Seminary
  18. Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary
  19. Gary M. Burge, Wheaton College
  20. Eugene Carpenter, Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana
  21. D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  22. Joseph Coleson, Nazarene Theological Seminary
  23. Philip W. Comfort, NT Coordinating Editor, Coastal Carolina University
  24. Peter Davids, St. Stephen’s University
  25. Raymond B. Dillard, Westminster Theological Seminary
  26. David A. Dorsey, Evangelical School of Theology
  27. Norman R. Ericson, Senior Translator, Wheaton College
  28. Terry Eves, Erskine College
  29. Daniel C. Fredericks, Belhaven College
  30. Mark D. Futato, Reformed Theological Seminary
  31. Robert Gordon, Cambridge University
  32. Douglas Green, Westminster Theological Seminary
  33. Douglas Gropp, Catholic University of America
  34. Robert Guelich, Fuller Theological Seminary
  35. George Guthrie, Union University
  36. Victor Hamilton, Asbury University
  37. R. K. Harrison, Wycliffe College
  38. Roy Hayden, Oral Roberts School of Theology
  39. Ted Hildebrandt, Gordon College
  40. Andrew Hill, Wheaton College
  41. Paul R. House, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
  42. David M. Howard Jr, Bethel Theological Seminary
  43. David Hubbard, Fuller Theological Seminary
  44. August Konkel, Providence Theological Seminary
  45. V. Philips Long, Regent College
  46. Tremper Longman III, Senior Translator, Westmont College
  47. Donald A. Hagner, Fuller Theological Seminary
  48. Harold W. Hoehner, Dallas Theological Seminary
  49. William Lane. Seattle Pacific University
  50. William J. Larkin. Columbia International University
  51. G. Herbert Livingston, Asbury Theological Seminary
  52. Elmer A. Martens, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary
  53. Kenneth Mathews. Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
  54. Gerald L. Mattingly, Johnson Bible College
  55. J. Gordon McConville, University of Gloucester
  56. Scot McKnight, North Park University
  57. Eugene H. Merrill, Dallas Theological Seminary
  58. J. Ramsey Michaels, S. W. Missouri State University
  59. Roger Mohrlang. Whitworth University
  60. Robert Mounce. Whitworth University
  61. Douglas J. Moo, Wheaton College
  62. M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Asbury Theological Seminary
  63. Mark R. Norton, Coordinating Editor
  64. Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Immanuel Church, Nashville, Tennessee
  65. Grant R. Osborne, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  66. Douglas A. Oss, Central Bible College
  67. John N. Oswalt., Asbury Theological Seminary
  68. Richard Patterson, Liberty University
  69. Richard Pratt, Reformed Theological Seminary
  70. Allen Ross, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
  71. Thomas R. Schreiner, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
  72. Richard Schultz, Wheaton College
  73. Moises Silva. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
  74. Robert Sloan. Houston Baptist University
  75. Gary Smith. Union University
  76. Klyne Snodgrass. North Park Theological Seminary
  77. Lawson Stone, Asbury Theological Seminary
  78. Robert Stein, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
  79. Daniel W. Taylor, Bethel University, Senior Stylist
  80. Kenneth N. Taylor, Translator, The Living Bible
  81. David Thompson, Asbury Theological Seminary
  82. John A. Thompson, University of Melbourne
  83. Marianne Meye Thompson, Fuller Theological Seminary
  84. David Turner, Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
  85. J. Robert Vannoy. Biblical Theological Seminary
  86. John Walton, Wheaton College
  87. Gordon Wenham. Trinity College, Bristol
  88. William C. Williams, Vanguard University
  89. H. G. M. Williamson, Oxford University
  90. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, Eastern College
  91. Willem VanGemeren, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  92. Al Wolters, Redeemer College

The preceding persons hold that God exists in the person of Jesus the Messiah. The Bible is true, reliable, and represents God’s revelation of Himself to the world. The miracles of Jesus, His crucifixion and resurrection, are all true events that took place just as the writers of the New Testament describe them. Conservative New Testament Scholars hold that the Gospels were written early in the first century, by eyewitnesses who saw and heard what is written in the text.

List of Liberal Scholars

  1. Bart Ehrman, Wheaton College
  2. Mitchell G. Reddish, Southern Seminary
  3. Marcus Borg, Union Theological Seminary
  4. Robert Price, Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary.
  5. Robert Funk, Vanderbilt University
  6. John Dominic Crossan, Patrick’s College, Maynooth
  7. Burton Mack, Claremont School of Theology
  8. Barbara Thiering,
  9. Harold Attridge,
  10. Lloyd Geering,
  11. Stephen Harris,
  12. Karen King,

The Doctrinal Beliefs Concerning The Bible, Of The Liberal Scholars Listed Above:

Bart Ehrman

Beginning as an evangelical Christian; attending the right Christian colleges; trained under the best of mentors; graduating with a Ph.D, magna cum laude. How is it then that Ehrman is one of the chief adversaries of the New Testament? No one can truly know what was really in the heart of Bart Ehrman at the beginning or what transpired during the time of his education and period of doubts thereafter. These are matter that are his along to know and the God who made Bart Ehrman.

What we do know is that Jesus taught extensively on this very subject. The Pharisees were the Ph.D’s of their generation. No one knew the Hebrew texts better than these men. In spite of their tremendous education, they did not recognize the Messiah when He arrived. The prophet Isaiah predicted that when Messiah arrived, He would be “despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:3). Jesus taught that “the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”( Mark 8:31). The term “Son of Man,” is a key phrase from the book of Daniel in the Old Testament which described the coming of the Son of Man, the Messiah, in the last days. Jesus used this term to describe Himself 81 times in the koine-Greek texts of the New Testament. This usage by Jesus is unmistakable. Jesus was asserting that He is the Messiah whom all the prophets wrote about.

Despite this well known fact throughout the Old Testament, Ehrman has stated repeatedly that Jesus did not claim to be God in the Synoptic Gospels.

Jesus Faces the Sanhedrin In Matthew’s Gospel

Matthew describes Jesus before the high priest as He is questioned about His true identity. The high priest uses an ancient Hebrew imperative to interrogate Jesus by placing Him under oath: are you the Christ, the Son of God?

There is no ambiguity regarding what is being asked or asserted concerning Jesus. The high priest is demanding an answer from Jesus because it was well known by this time that He had, on several occasions, claimed to be the Son of God.

And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”Jesus said to him, “It is as you said.

Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!  What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”  ~Matthew 26:62-66

Jesus answers in the affirmative that He is the Son of God, just as the high priest has said. Then Jesus uses two confirming scriptures from Daniel chapter 7 where the prophet describes the Messiah as the Son of Man, coming with the clouds.

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.  ~Daniel 7:13-14

Daniel is the first to use the term Son of Man to describe the Messiah, and the only writer to use the phrase, coming with the clouds, in the Old Testament.

John also writes in the Book of Revelation, that Jesus will be coming with the clouds when He returns.

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him (Zechariah 12:10). And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.  ~Revelation 1:7

The term clouds is used in Hebrews 12:1 to describe those who are in heaven as witnesses, watching our progress here on earth. John said that when Jesus returns, these cloud of witnesses will be coming with Him to reign over the earth as Messiah.

Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.  ~ Hebrews 12:1

Here, Jesus applies both of Daniel’s terms, clouds and Son of Man, to Himself. Jesus also confirmed to the Pharisees in Matthew 26:62-66, above, that He is the Son of God.

By these three declarations to the Pharisees, that He is the Son of God, The Son of Man, and Coming with the clouds, Jesus is confirming three things:

  1. He is God.
  2. He Is Messiah.
  3. He Is coming again to rule over the kingdom promised to David that will never end.

There is no mistake in what Jesus has told the Pharisees. We see by the response of the high priest in tearing his garments, that he clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. It was upon this declaration that the high priest pronounces “blasphemy,” and declares that Jesus should be put to death.

Did you also notice here that in addition to Jesus saying He is God and the Messiah, we also see that the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would be God? How is it that Ehrman could make such a blunder? Clearly Jesus asserted throughout all four Gospels that He was God. This was the very reason He was crucified, yet Ehrman doesn’t seem to know this.

Could Uneducated Men Write The Gospels?

Ehrman often states that the writers of the four Gospels were uneducated men who did not have the capacity to write the elegant Koine-Greek text we see in the New Testament. He refers to Acts chapter 4 where Peter and John are standing before the council of leaders at Jerusalem. In this text we find the statement: “they could see that the Apostles were ordinary men with no special training in the Scriptures.”

From this statement, Ehrman has concluded that it was impossible for these men to have the skill necessary to write the Gospels. The problem is that Ehrman leaves out the rest of the text which helps the reader understand how uneducated men could have the ability to write what we find in the four Gospels. “They also recognized them as men who had been with Jesus.” It was Jesus who gave these uneducated men the ability to understand and communicate everything that He had said and done during His three and one-half years of ministry. Jesus told these men: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” ~John 14:26

It was these unique abilities to remember and write all they had seen and heard that Jesus imparted to these men, which made it possible for them to write what we see today in the New Testament.

Faulty Perception Determines Errors Of Assumption

One of the problems that the leaders of Israel consistently exhibited, was their false perception that Jesus and His Apostles were uneducated.

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. ~Acts 4:13-14

It is important to notice here that the rulers, elders, and scribes of Israel “perceived” that Peter and John were uneducated. This does mean that they actually were illiterate, it was merely the perception of these men that they were not capable of reading or writing the scriptures. The Pharisees had previously stated the same thing about Jesus, and they were also wrong:

They were surprised when they heard Jesus. “How does he know so much when he hasn’t been trained?” they asked. ~John 7:15

Jesus repeatedly demonstrated that He was far more proficient in the scriptures than all of the Pharisees, and chief priests, who were the Ph.D’s of the Hebrews scriptures during that time.

Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? ~Mark 12:24

In the next chapter you will see this further demonstrated when Jesus challenges the Pharisees understanding of Psalms 110.

Evidence Of Peter’s Proficiency

Examine the text of Acts chapter 2 where Peter is before thousands at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. He delivers one of the most spectacular dissertations describing Jesus’ fulfillment of the Hebrew prophets, that has ever been recorded.

Does it seem to you in Acts 2 that Peter is uneducated and unable to communicate the scriptures?

Beginning at Acts 2:14-41, Peter systematically describes Joel 2:28-32, Psalms 16:8-11 (Greek version), and Psalms 110:1, all as fulfilled by Jesus as the Messiah. There were few men in Israel at that time who were capable of accomplishing such a dissertation, and with such accuracy.

Peter even quotes from the Greek version of the text in Psalms 16:8-11, which would only be possible if He knew Greek.

The idea that Peter and John, with the other Apostles of Jesus, were illiterate, is not supported by the text of the New Testament.

Jesus Imparted Supernatural Abilities To His Apostles

Just before Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead in John chapter 14:25-26, Jesus said that after He is gone the Holy Spirit will come and remind these men of all that Jesus had said and done, so that they could write an accurate account and send it out to the world.

I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you. ~John 14:25-26

How do we know that these men had supernatural abilities to remember and write the elegant Gospels we find? Read the last part of Acts 4:14 above: But since they could see the man who had been healed standing right there among them, there was nothing the council could say.” The Pharisees had before them, a man who had been healed by Peter and John, so it was impossible for them to condemn these men for their good work. This tells us that these uneducated men, who had been with Jesus, also had supernatural abilities given to them by Jesus. Peter and John were able to simply speak to this man and he was healed. Notice how skilled Peter is in communicating the truth of Jesus to the leaders of Israel:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” ~Acts 4:8-12

Again, Peter quoting scripture from Psalms 118:22, as one proficient in the Hebrew prophecies written for Messiah. The first line of this text tells us why this was possible, Peter was “filled with the Holy Spirit.”

There is no question that these simple men had been given the ability write an accurate and elegant narrative of Jesus in the four Gospels, because Jesus made this possible.

Scholar, Bart Ehrman, On The Eyewitnesses

According to New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, because the narratives of Jesus found in the New Testament were written in Greek, they could not have been written by the followers of Jesus. According to Ehrman, the Apostles of Jesus were not educated men who would have been able to write Greek. For this reason, Ehrman concludes that the four Gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses, but were written by others much later, who had not seen Jesus. Do you think that Jesus called 12 men to see what He had done, so they could tell the world, but they could not write?

There are several problems with Ehrman’s conclusions. First, and most important; the surviving manuscript copies for the four Gospel that we have in our possession today are copies of the original autographs, not the original writings. To assume that because the surviving manuscript copies we have today were written in Greek, therefore the original autographs were also written in Greek, is a conclusion that cannot possibly be proven. The entire hypothesis of Ehrman is based on this assumption.

We don’t know what language the original autographs were written, or who it was that may have assisted the Apostles in transcribing them. We don’t know that the Apostles were not able to write Greek. We don’t know that the original autographs were first written in Aramaic or Hebrew and later copied as Greek texts. In the third decade of the second century, Papias said: “Matthew gathered the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and each person translated them as he was able.”1

We can’t accurately conclude what language the original autographs were written because they don’t exist any longer. There are no original autographs for any ancient texts of that age, secular or religious. All that we have today to prove any ancient event are the surviving manuscript copies.

Luke writes at the beginning of his Gospel that he was very familiar with all of the events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, states that he personally interviewed the eyewitnesses who saw Jesus and heard Him. Luke was a Greek speaking Physician who was highly educated. Matthew was a tax collector and must certainly have acquired the ability to write well. The Romans would have required every tax collector to possess the ability to write and speak adequately in order to carry out their appointed tasks. Mark was a Greek speaking Jew, who was able to write in Greek, and was the scribe for Peter.

When we examine the text of Acts 21:37, we see that Paul was also able to speak Koine-Greek.

Then as Paul was about to be led into the barracks, he said to the commander, (in Greek,λληνιστ) “May I speak to you?” He replied, “Can you speak Greek? ~Acts 21:37

The commander of the barracks was surprised that Paul, a Jew, could speak Koine-Greek. From this we can demonstrate that Paul, a proficient scholar of the Pharisees, was also able to assist the writers of the Gospels in writing their texts in Greek, if this was necessary.

There are numerous errors made by Ehrman in all of his books. In reading the publications of Bart Ehrman, the diligent student immediately notices that there is rarely any evidence to support the conclusions He makes. Ehrman expects the reader to take his word for it because He does not prove most of the ideas He puts forth in all of his books.

Mitchell G. Reddish

Notice the following statement in the book, “An Introduction To The Four Gospels,” by New Testament scholar, Mitchell G. Reddish,” in the first chapter, called: “The Formation Of The Four Gospels,” written in 1997.

“Since the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—begin the New Testament, readers often assume that these works were the earliest written products of the Christian church. This assumption is often coupled with the beliefs that the authors of the four Gospels were eyewitnesses of the events they narrate and that the composition of the four Gospels was relatively simple process of preserving in writing what they had seen and heard firsthand. Such assumptions about the Gospels, however, are inaccurate. All the letters of Paul in the New Testament were written prior to any of the Gospels being completed. The authors of the Gospels, or at least the persons responsible for the final form of the Gospels, were almost certainly not eyewitnesses; and the Gospels themselves are the end products of traditions that were transmitted and preserved in various forms, both oral and written.”

This book is listed as a primary source at Wikipedia for information regarding the writing of the four Gospels.

Reddish continues with the statement:

“Jesus of Nazareth was not an author, but a teacher and preacher. His method of communication was exclusively oral. Furthermore, there is no indication that Jesus expected or desired that his message would be preserved in writing and passed along for generations.”

Here is the problem with the above statement that is often repeated many times, in many other books; there is absolutely no evidence to prove that any of these statements by Mitchell Reddish are true. In fact, there is evidence in the New Testament text that impeaches all of Reddish’s assumptions. Jesus repeatedly tells His disciples to write all they had seen.

Twelve times Jesus tells John to write everything that he has seen:

  • Write in a book everything you see…” Rev. 1:11
  • Write down what you have seen…” Rev. 1:19
  • Write letters…” Rev. 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14
  • “Write this down…” Rev. 14:13
  • “Write this…” Rev. 19:19
  • “Write in a book everything you see…” Rev 21:11

Mitchell Reddish said: “there is no indication that Jesus expected or desired that his message would be preserved in writing and passed along for generations.”

This man is considered a New Testament scholar who is teaching young people at university these unprovable posits with no evidentiary proof. This is the reason that so many young people, who start out with great faith in Jesus, end up with a dead faith by the end of their first year at seminary.

Mitchell Reddish intends that his book would be used as a textbook for seminary students. He states in the author’s comments for this book, the following:

“An Introduction to the Gospels is designed to be a textbook for courses on the Gospels, for use at the college and beginning seminary level.”

If you purchased this book or were given it as part of your seminary or university class, this is the information you would first see regarding the New Testament.

  1. The assertion by Reddish that the Gospels were not written until much later, is based upon his assumption that Jesus never told the disciples to write a record for Him. In fact, Jesus told the Apostles immediately after He was risen from the dead, to take what they had seen “to all the nations,” in Luke 24:47. In Acts 1:8, just prior to Jesus’ ascension back to heaven, He said “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” It would not be possible to accomplish this without a written record that was distributed to all the known parts of the world. Paul was able to reach the people of the known world, only by publishing written letters that were distributed throughout Asia Minor early in the first century by known postal routes.
  2. The assertion by Reddish that the writers were not eyewitnesses, cannot be proven by anyone. This conclusion is based solely on opinions, conjecture, speculation, and general consensus amongst other scholars holding the same view of the New Testament. Again, using the text itself as the authority, the writers themselves clearly state that they saw Jesus with their own eyes. See the first chapter, “Eyewitness Accounts,” for detailed proof that these texts were written by eyewitnesses.
  3. The claim by Reddish that Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels has no actual physical evidence to prove this assertion. It is based upon his opinion and the opinions of other liberal scholars. In fact, we can prove from the evidence of the New Testament itself that the letters of Paul were not all written before the Gospels. We have textual evidence that the text Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5:18, he received from Luke’s Gospel, 10:7, which must have existed before Paul wrote his letters.
  4. The idea of Reddish that because Jesus did not write anything Himself, He did not intend that the men who He called to be His witnesses would also not write a lasting record of all they had seen and heard, is preposterous. This was the very reason that Jesus called these men to follow Him and witness what He was doing. Jesus was fulfilling the Old Testament scriptures of the Messiah and unless these men wrote a permanent record of how and when He did this, it would never be known to later generations.
  5. The entire purpose of Jesus’ arrival on earth was to herald the arrival of the Messiah that God promised the world. If this was not accomplished by eyewitnesses who heard and saw Jesus do the things that He accomplished; if the text was not immediately written and sent to the world; if Jesus never intended that a record would be written at all, the coming of the Messiah to earth to die for the sins of the world and offer redemption to every person, would be useless. Of course Jesus called eyewitnesses to record what they saw and write their testimony immediately. Of course Jesus wanted a permanent record to be made. If not, then the entire narrative of Jesus makes no sense at all.

In John chapter 17, Jesus is praying to the Father and asking Him to protect the men who have been with Him and have heard and seen all that He has said and done. Jesus said: “Now I am departing from the world; they are staying in this world.” ~John 17:11. He continues in verse 20 with the words: “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.” ~John 17:20

Jesus is specifically stating that the men who have seen Him and all He has done, will write their testimony about Jesus and many others will believe in Jesus through their message.

Evidence From Paul’s Letters

A vigorous and compelling proof for the earlier writing of the four Gospels is also supported by Paul in his epistles. From a simple observance of what Paul wrote, we can accurately conclude that Luke’s Gospel was already in existence when Paul wrote to Timothy.

In Paul’s letter to Timothy, chapter 5, verse 18, he quotes from Luke’s gospel. It is Jesus who is saying the words that both Luke and Paul record.

Paul: For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”  ~1 Timothy 5:18

When we examine Luke’s Gospel, we see that what Paul had written in 1 Timothy 5:18, came from what Luke had already written before in Luke 10:7.

Luke: And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house.  ~Luke 10:7

The first part of this verse that is quoted comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. However the second part of the verse is a direct quotation from Jesus Himself, as recorded by Luke: “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7). This text is not found in the Old Testament. Paul quotes the exact same Greek texts that Luke first used in his Gospel. This proves that Paul knew that Luke’s Gospel was already written before he wrote to Timothy, and he considered Luke’s’ Gospel genuine scripture.

This dates the Gospel of Luke as written before Paul’s letter to Timothy—corroborating a very early writing for the Gospels. Luke’s Gospel was written after Matthew and Mark, as described in the first paragraph of Luke where he defines the source of his Gospel as coming from the eyewitness reports from the early disciples.

This proves that Reddish is wrong. The Gospels were written first, before Paul wrote his letters in the New Testament. Remember that Reddish has never provided any proof of a later writing for the Gospels. Like all modern liberal scholars, these men and women take great liberties in forcing their opinions, without any evidentiary support.

Marcus Joel Borg (1942–2015) was an American New Testament scholar and theologian. As fellow of the Jesus Seminar, Borg was a major figure in seeking to impeach the traditions views of the Bible.

Robert McNair Price (born July 7, 1954) is an American New Testament scholar who argues against the existence of a historical Jesus (the Christ myth theory).  Price is a fellow of the suspended Jesus Project. He is a religious skeptic, especially of orthodox Christian beliefs, occasionally describing himself as a Christian atheist.

Robert W. Funk (July 18, 1926 – September 3, 2005) was an American biblical scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar. His approach to hermeneutics was historical-critical, with a strongly skeptical view of orthodox Christian belief, particularly concerning the historical Jesus. He and his peers described Jesus’ parables as containing shocking messages that contradicted established religious attitudes.

John Dominic Crossan (born February 17, 1934[1]) is an Irish-American New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, and former Catholic priest who was a prominent member of The Jesus Seminar. His work portraying the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus’ message and saying that Jesus’ divinity is metaphorical. He and Burton Mack are notable advocates for a non-eschatological view of Jesus, a view that contradicts the more common view that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.

Burton L. Mack (born 1931) is an American author and scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament. Mack’s approach is skeptical, and he sees traditional Christian documents like the Gospels as myth as opposed to history. He sees the gospels not as reliable accounts of the life of Jesus.

Mack suggests that Jesus was a wandering sage, similar in style to the Greco-Roman Cynics, and that the earliest “Jesus Movements. “He is a noted scholar of the hypothetical Q Document, a hypothetical ancient document that does not exist, used to try and refute the authenticity of the synoptic Gospels.

Barbara Elizabeth Thiering (15 November 1930 – 16 November 2015) Challenging Christian orthodoxy, espousing the view that new findings present alternative answers to its supernatural beliefs. Her analysis has been rejected by both New Testament scholars and scholars in Judaism.


NOTES:

The above descriptions for each liberal scholar came from the Wikipedia entries for these persons. Some text is quoted verbatim, others have edits for the purpose of limited space.