Alex O'Connor on The argument from scripture
O'Connor treats scripture as a historical document to be evaluated critically, not a self-authenticating authority.
O'Connor's approach to scripture is measured and scholarly rather than polemical. He does not treat the Bible with contempt but subjects it to the same critical scrutiny applied to any ancient text — and finds it wanting as evidence for divine authorship. His criticisms target the reliability of the manuscripts, the process of canonisation, and the internal contradictions that resist harmonisation.
In conversations with Christian scholars, O'Connor has focused particularly on the New Testament, arguing that the Gospels are not independent eyewitness accounts but literary compositions written decades after the events they describe, by authors who were not eyewitnesses and who had clear theological agendas. The contradictions between the Gospel accounts — different genealogies, different resurrection narratives, different accounts of Judas's death — are precisely what we would expect from human authors working independently, not from divinely inspired truth.
O'Connor also engages with the argument from prophecy, noting that many alleged Old Testament prophecies are taken out of context, were not understood as messianic by their original audiences, or were written after the events they supposedly predict. The Gospel writers, who had access to the Hebrew scriptures, had both the means and the motive to shape their narratives to fit prophetic expectations.
“The question is not whether the Bible contains some historical information. The question is whether it is the kind of evidence that would justify believing a man rose from the dead.”