Continuing from last week, the last of the three significant criticisms lodged against the Christian resurrection narrative is undergirded by a claim that the sources used to defend the resurrection are deficient. When it comes to skeptical criticism, the source of the evidence is usually one of the first topics to be discussed. After all, if our sources are the only evidence we have, then they should be.
However, in general, the criticism takes two forms: there is not enough evidence, and the sources are deficient. At first glance, the claim that there is 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, almost everyone agrees that Jesus died by crucifixion. Likewise, a consensus of scholars believes 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, they were not written by eyewitnesses. Second, they were written late, 35-65 years after Jesus’ death. Third, they contain propaganda that was altered in itself, 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 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 eyewitnesses did not write the Gospels, it is not that uncommon to have histories written by non-eyewitnesses. For example, no extant (surviving) histories of Alexander the Great were written by eyewitnesses. Moreover, the Roman historians held in such high esteem, Suetonius and Tacitus were not eyewitnesses to any of the events they wrote about. In more 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 Mark and Luke contain eyewitness testimony; Mark is Peter’s eyewitness account, and Luke is 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. Ultimately, the argument that eyewitnesses did not write the accounts 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, yet his earliest writing is dated 50+ years after his death. By comparison, four biographies of Jesus were 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), we have an account going back quite possibly, within months of the resurrection. Early oral formulas are also found in Romans, Luke, and 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 valid. Regardless of when the Gospels reached their final form, there is a strong probability 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 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 as 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 Waurika Church of Christ and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at dr.kerley@ isGoddead.com.
