Before we investigate the historical resurrection claim that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, something more must be said about the Gospels here. We had said early on that in order to have a conversation about the existence of God and the truthfulness of Christianity, some common ground must be sought and claimed if the Christian and the unbeliever are going to have any meaningful conversation about religious things. This holds especially true for religious conversations with the Bible skeptics like “Michael.” Where do we find common ground? For example, when investigating claims that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead? To use the Bible as evidence flies in the face of its critic, Michael.
On the other hand, if the ancient writings collected in the Bible are considered rightly as historical documents, then we have once again found common ground between the Christian and the Bible skeptics of the world. The truth is, at minimum, the gospel accounts are ancient writings about historical events. In that sense, the gospels are history. Bible scholar Timothy Paul Jones writes of the Gospels, “They may turn out to be much more than that, but they are certainly no less.” More importantly, the gospels are historical documents and were written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.
The foremost question of any reasonable historical investigation is most often, “Who said so?” The case is no different when investigating the historical claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. One critical criterion that allows the historian to answer the “who said so” question satisfactorily is eyewitness testimony. The world’s legal systems, in all times, in all places and in all cultures, have always been contingent upon eyewitness testimony in the arbitration of justice. Historical claims are no different. Although eyewitness testimony has its critics, there is no rational reason to believe that eyewitness testimony is corrupt. New Testament Scholar Richard Bauckham is helpful here, noting, “Trusting testimony is not an irrational act of faith that leaves critical rationality aside; it is, on the contrary, the rationally appropriate way of responding to authentic testimony, and the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus.” How else could we ever know anything from the past?
However, modern-day critics of Christianity in general, and atheist Bart Ehrman in particular, CONTINUED FROM A5
argue that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts but are distorted stories from faulty and failed memories that were not written down until decades later. And even then, the Gospels were written not by eyewitnesses but by anonymous people recording “nineteenth-hand” stories. Unfortunately, Ehrman seems not only to discount the eyewitness testimonies captured in the Gospels wholesale but also to discount key aspects of first-century Middle Eastern oral tradition. Ehrman states, “Traditions in oral cultures do not remain the same over time but change rapidly, repeatedly and extensively. That is especially important when considering traditions about Jesus in circulation in the early church, among people who were by and large illiterate, during the first forty to sixty-five years of Christianity, before the Gospels were written.”
It turns out that the oral transmission of stories in first-century Palestinian culture was a highly regulated tradition, especially in terms of historical recollections. One reason is that early Christians identified themselves through the words and teachings of Jesus. To corrupt the oral transmission of Jesus stories was to corrupt their own identity. Beyond that, the oral transmission of Jesus stories was viewed as the historical basis of their beliefs and stood as a permanent historical record. Ancient oral culture (still in practice today in many Middle Eastern cultures) allowed for some flexibility in reciting oral histories to allow for the storyteller’s style. However, the central truths of the story could not be changed. Consequently, all of the listeners stood as protectors of the accuracy of the main lines of the story. As a result, this type of oral transmission was, and can be repeated over and over again by a multitude of people, and the central story remains unchanged. This means Ehrman’s caricature of Middle Eastern oral transmission through his modern, Western eyes as a version of the “Telephone Game” is simply inaccurate.
But what about the written Gospels? Some were written 25-35 years after the event. Who actually wrote these accounts? Unsurprisingly, Ehrman rejects the evidence of the Gospels being written as eyewitness accounts out of hand. However, he does date the Gospel compositions well within the lifetimes of at least some eyewitnesses. By this, if the eyewitnesses are alive and preaching, teaching and traveling, it stands to reason that during this “40 to 65 years before the Gospels were written,” the eyewitnesses would have stood guard over the oral traditions ensuring their accuracy until they were put into writing.
Finally, we have strong evidence that when the oral traditions of Jesus were written in the Gospels, the eyewitnesses, or their associates, provided the Gospel accounts. Papias, the very early second-century bishop of Hierapolis, wrote much about the eyewitness nature of the Gospel accounts, specifically, what he knew to be “a living and surviving voice.” These traditions were then guarded by the eyewitnesses throughout the rest of their lives. In sum, Papias insists the Gospels represent continuity through a living connection between the eyewitnesses and the written accounts.
But there is more to the story; we will return to it next time. 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 Waurika Church of Christ and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at dr.kerley@isGoddead.
