Last week, we considered New Testament critic Bart Ehrman’s suggestion that the historical story of what happened to Jesus after He died was changed and corrupted over years of oral transmission before the Gospel accounts were written. On the contrary, we noted that the oral transmission of histories in ancient Near Eastern culture was not only a very serious and highly structured undertaking, but 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. Great care was taken to preserve the true story down the line.

But that is not all; internal evidence indicates that the Gospel accounts are also eyewitness accounts. The eyewitness and apostle John writes, “That which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us – that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you” (1John 1:1-4 ESV, emphasis mine).

I know, I know! Michael cries foul: he doesn’t believe the Bible is God’s word. Okay, okay, okay! How about this: what if a man named John, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the events, wrote these words in an ancient letter that the world refers to as 1 John 1:1-4? At the very least, is the letter, not history? Absolutely! But there is still more concerning the Gospel’s internal witness claiming its authors to be eyewitnesses. The historian Luke records the eyewitness account of Peter and others, saying, “and we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem, they put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 1:1-4). But even before this Luke made clear in his writing of the Gospel that he was recording historical eyewitness testimony stating “inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account.” At the very least, this is eyewitness testimony!

Further, twenty-first-century Bart Ehrman from Lawrence, Kansas goes against the late first-century writings of Papias, a bishop whose lifetime overlapped that of the apostle John. Living within the same town, and who was friends with the daughters of Phillip, in arguing against the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony given in the Gospels. On the contrary, Papias presents the Gospel of Mark as based upon the eyewitness account of Peter, the Gospel of Matthew based upon Matthew’s own testimony, the Gospel of Luke based upon the testimony of Paul, and the Gospel of John based upon the eyewitness testimony of John himself.

Further, Ehrman claims that the Gospel authorships were originally anonymous and that their titles were added much later. Now, Ehrman’s claim seems a bit deceptive for a couple of reasons. It is essential to know that every Gospel manuscript that survives bears one of the same titles we see today: Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. First, before 200 A.D., only Gospel manuscript fragments exist that do not include the first page of the manuscript, where one would expect to find the work’s title. Second, every single ancient Gospel manuscript known is titled using Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John’s name. Third, to argue that the original manuscripts and nonexistent copies from the first century were all untitled is grand speculation from extreme silence. Ehrman may someday be proven correct but based on the concrete evidence we have in hand, it is indisputable that there are no existing Gospel manuscripts from antiquity that are anonymous. Every ancient Gospel manuscript known to mankind is titled with the same Gospel authors we see in our Bibles today; every single one.

Ancient historians were convinced that true, accurate history could only be written while events were still in the living memory of the eyewitnesses who recorded the events. In the case of the Gospel accounts, we seem to have nothing less. So, I’ve got to tell you, the evidence appears persuasive; the resurrection of Jesus was witnessed, attested and recorded in the living memories of those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning. But that is not all the story. Nor is it the end of the criticism. Nevertheless, historians know that the closer to the event a testimony can be given, the more accurate the testimony tends to be. With that said, what if a testimony exists that possibly dates to within months of the events surrounding what happened to Jesus after He died? Join us next week as we look at just such a source of evidence.

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. com.