Continuing from last week, the last of the three major criticisms lodgedagainstthe Christian resurrection narrative is undergirded by a claim that the sources used to defend the resurrection are deficient. When it comes to skeptical criticism, it is the source of the evidence that is usually one of the first topics to be discussed. After all, if our sources are the only evidence we have then it should be.
However, in general, the criticism takes two forms; not enough evidence, and deficient sources. At first look, the claim of not enough evidence seems solid. After all, there were no eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and all we have are accounts of an empty tomb and reports of later sightings. But, bear in mind that this is not as bad as critics would have you believe. Think about this; as I have said repeatedly, most everyone is in agreement that Jesus died by crucifixion. Likewise, a consensus of scholars believe that the disciples were convinced that Jesus appeared to them. From these two facts alone, the inference is that He was resurrected. Deficiency of sources, however, is a long running discussion at the heart of which lies arguments over the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.
Critics of the resurrection generally point to four areas of dispute concerning the Gospels. First, that they were not written by eyewitnesses. Second, they were written late, 35-65 years after Jesus’ death. Third, that they contain propaganda that was itself altered resulting in various discrepancies. Finally, it is argued that no extra-biblical sources mention Jesus until 80 years after His death. To this I say: “fair enough. Let us take a closer look.”
The first criticism; that the Gospels lack eyewitness authorship, was addressed several weeks ago. But since it is a critical argument, it is worth repeating to some extent here. As we said, critics often claim that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses however, it is important to know that to the contrary, many scholars oppose this position and argue that at least some of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, or close associates.
Even if it were true that the Gospels werenotwrittenbyeyewitnesses, it is not that uncommon to have histories written by non-eyewitnesses. For example, there are no extant (surviving) histories of Alexander the Great written by eyewitnesses. Moreover, the Roman historians which are held in such high esteem, Suetonius and Tacitus were not eyewitnesses to any oftheeventstheywroteabout.Inmore modern times most of the greatest histories of the American Civil War were not written by eyewitnesses. Even today no one has living memory of Abraham Lincoln, or Robert E. Lee, but historians are still writing accurate accounts of irretrievable events surrounding those men. Even so, virtually all scholars hold that MarkandLukecontainthetestimony of eyewitnesses; Mark being Peter’s eyewitness account, and Luke being Paul’s account. This is where the dating of the Gospels becomes a supporting element rather than a point of contention. Eyewitness testimony weighs heavily in the authentication of historical material, and any work written in a timeframe that would allow for eyewitness testimony must also be given priority. In the end, the argument that the accounts were not written by eyewitnesses has little support.
Second, critics also claim the Gospels were written too long after the event to be accurate. But the Gospel accounts document a story only 35-65 years past. Further, the Jewish writer Josephus actually mentions Jesus within 60 years. At any rate, this is not that uncommon with ancient historical figures. Augustus is considered Rome’s greatest emperor and yet the earliest writing of him is dated at 50+ years after his death. By comparison, there are four biographies of Jesus written within 60 years of His life. At any rate, one very important thing to remember here: the early oral traditions. If we consider the kerygma, or the oral formula (especially 1 Cor 15:3-7),thenwehaveanaccountgoing back quite possibly, within months of the resurrection. Early oral formulas are also found in Romans, in Luke, and in 1 Corinthians that predate Mark. Additionally, the other sources Luke refers to in Luke 1:1-4 could be written material that even predates Galatians (~48 AD). There is also evidence of source documents such as the hypothetical “Q” which could well have been written very soon after Jesus’ death.
The argument that the Gospels are late is not a valid argument. Especially when considering that irrespective of when the Gospels reached their final form, the strong probability is that the resurrection stories they contain go back to very early oral tradition. This becomes even more apparent if we look at non-Christian biographies. Looking at the Roman emperor Tiberius who was a contemporary of Jesus, there are an equal number of non-Christian sources that mention Tiberius within 150 years of his life as there are that mention Jesus, at nine each. That gives us a ratio of 9:9. If we add in Christian sources to this number, the ratio goes from 9:9 to 10:42. There are over four times as many sources for the resurrection than there are for the history of Tiberius Caesar. But this is not a singular example. Join us next time as we continue to address the criticism of the Christian resurrection narrative having deficient sources. Until then, is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.