The Primacy of the Messenger Over the Message

One of the features of Christian apologetic writing is a reliance upon the who rather than the what. This often frustrates critics who cite evidence contrary to Christian theology that is simply dismissed out of hand merely because the messenger was not a Christian himself. This differs dramatically from science where the work itself is cited as the primary defense of a scientific conclusion with the authors of those citations used primarily for reference purposes and to establish the bona fides of the citation. Christian writing frequently employs the opposite approach; trusting the author's words regardless the credence of those words; as long as the author is a professed Christian believer.

The best example of the reliance upon authorship is the acceptance of C.S. Lewis as the primary "modern" spokesman for the defense of Christianity. It is difficult to find contemporary Christian literature that does not pay homage to the writing of C.S. Lewis. Lewis; however, is a poor apologist outside of the realm of belief because his arguments begin with assumptions regarding the truthfulness of the New Testament, the existence of God and his Son as divine. Of course, if these assumptions are accepted on their face Lewis‘ arguments follow clearly. What most Christian writers fail to grasp is that this is not a defense of Christianity. It skips over and ignores the primary failing of the religion, namely the historicity of the work and its main characters. As long as one begins their argument with the assumption that the Bible is true there can be many valid arguments such as those by C.S. Lewis. Their establishment as true goes unchallenged leaving the argument's soundness as unaddressed. This makes Lewis' works essentially a waste of time outside the realm of Christendom.

Another, slightly less well known example of Christian reliance on the messenger over the message is Simon Greenleaf. Greenleaf was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School giving him strong bona fides in the world of law. As such, his 1846 "The Testimony of the Evangelists" is often cited as a definitive defense of the Gospels because of who Greenleaf was and the respect he commanded within his profession. In his "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" modern apologist Josh McDowell cites Greenleaf as evidence. Had McDowell actually scrutinized Greenleaf's arguments in light of the past 150 years of scholarship into biblical study he might have chosen to downplay some of Greenleaf's conclusions. Greenleaf's primary arguments centered on his assertion that the New Testament as a piece of evidence could withstand any challenge to its authenticity. In short, the New Testament, according to Greenleaf, would be accepted in a court of law as both testimony and evidence. He employed the rules of ancient documents to substantiate his claim that the oldest extant copies of the New Testament would stand up to the rules of evidence and be allowed into a legal proceeding as evidence. Greenleaf claimed a minor request, namely that the biblical evidence simply be accorded the same treatment as any other evidence. In his view and on this basis, it should be accepted on its face.

That absolutely no one could verify the authorship of the works; nor their native language contracts this claim. Furthermore; there was obvious copying from one work to another. Many of the letters attributed to Paul seem obviously to have been penned by others usurping Paul's name. There is no external writing supporting any aspect of the life of Jesus; nor any external archeological evidence. Neither the time frame nor chronological order for the writings can be established beyond mere conjecture.

In short, Greenleaf's assertion was plainly absurd, even in his day. One is hard pressed to find an objective legal scholar that will stand by Greenleaf's assertions today yet this does not stop the Christian writers from continuing to cite Greenleaf to sustain their claim about biblical evidence. In a similar fashion these same modern Christian apologists continue to cite Joesphus as external evidence for Christ even though almost know one that has studied Josephus' work believes it to be authentic. Once again, Christian apologists have tried to venture beyond a reliance on faith alone to sustain their belief. Yet again, they must fall back to faith alone becasue the evidence in support of Christianity simply does not exist.