The New Testament authors were believers with an agenda, so none of their testimony counts as historical evidence.

Why people find it persuasive

Historians typically prefer neutral witnesses. The gospels were written by people who wanted to persuade, which seems to disqualify them as reliable evidence.

Important distinctions

• • Bias as a reason for caution versus a reason for dismissal.
• • Neutral sources versus any source.
• • Evidence of conviction versus evidence of accuracy.

Christian response

• • Nearly all ancient sources have agendas, including Josephus, Tacitus, and Livy. Historians critically use them rather than dismissing them.
• • Conviction can be evidence: people who suffered for claims they knew to be false is implausible, though conviction alone does not show truth.
• • The gospels include embarrassing details (the disciples' failures, women as first witnesses, the cry of dereliction) which are hard to explain as pure promotion.
• • Richard Bauckham argues that the gospels are testimony, which historians regularly treat as legitimate evidence.

Christian counterresponse

Those controls exist partly: Josephus, Tacitus, archaeology, and Paul's letters corroborate parts.