On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences
Author: Gary Habermas
Date: 2024-01-15T05:00:00+00:00
Keywords: History; Religion; Religion/Christian Theology/General
Description: Published in four volumes, On the Resurrection serves as Gary R. Habermas’s magnum opus – a comprehensive defense of the authenticity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, built from Habermas’s lifetime of scholarly study. In the first volume, Evidences, Habermas presents a comprehensive offering of all the historical evidence for the resurrection, including extra-biblical sources and a full exploration of the minimal historical facts argument. This volume includes: A detailed overview of the nature of historical research and how historical truth is evaluated. Evidence for the existence of Jesus. A
Publisher: B&H Academic

“Habermas’s argument from evidential near death experiences and a likely afterlife to resurrection appearances of some sort is a useful addition to the literature.”

—Dale C. Allison Jr., Princeton Theological Seminary

“This volume commences a series that represents Dr. Habermas’s life work on the resurrection. Volume 1 lays the groundwork for the minimal facts approach, taking us from historiography and miracles to examining the texts themselves. This meticu-lously researched volume is a gift to anyone seeking to know what people have said about the resurrection pro and con. There could hardly be a more equipped guide to get us started and it is destined to be a part of the conversation for a long time to come.”

—Darrell Bock, senior research professor of New Testament studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

“I have closely followed the writings of Gary Habermas over the years—particularly his work on the historicity of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. I consider him its ablest living defender and so am exceedingly pleased to see the production of the first volume of his magnum opus. This superb tome on the evidences for the resurrection not only displays Habermas’s impressive scholarship, but it also exhibits a lifelong labor of love in service to both the church and the academy.”

—Paul Copan, Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University

“The central event on which hangs the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Without the resurrection of Jesus, there is no basis whatsoever for Christianity. No one understands this fact better than Gary Habermas, who has been investigating the topic for decades. His immense knowledge is reflected in this lengthy and learned study. This is a book for believers and unbelievers alike; it will confirm the faith of the former and seriously challenge the skepticism of the latter.”

—Craig Evans, John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins, Houston Theological Seminary

“Majestic. In my view, there is no doubt that this will be the go-to study on the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus for a generation or more—and I’m only talking about volume 1.”

—Craig J. Hazen, founder and director of the graduate program in Christian Apologetics, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

“The great authors personally embody their work; they become their books before they write. Gary Habermas’s journey from near-Buddhist, while completing his PhD at Michigan State, to the world’s most influential Christian scholar and sought-after thinker on the resurrection of Jesus is hard-won. Gary’s erudite accomplishment with this volume and series is enriched by the pain he has known of losing his beloved wife to cancer while raising their four children. If anyone had a compelling reason to walk away from Jesus’s resurrection, Gary did. But he didn’t—and all Christendom is now gifted with the greatest work on the resurrection of Jesus since the close of the New Testament canon. Every Christian thinker, pastor, scholar, seeker, and Bible student will use this book for generations to come.”

—Jeremiah Johnston, president, Christian Thinkers Society, and pastor of apologetics, Prestonwood Baptist Church.

“Dr. Habermas began his reading on the resurrection of Jesus when I was one year old. And I am sixty-one! This first volume of his magnum opus on the topic is the most comprehensive on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus ever written. Habermas is today’s top scholar on the topic. In fact, I am aware of only one other person who knows more about the resurrection of Jesus than Habermas, and that’s Jesus! This book and the subsequent volumes are for New Testament scholars, philosophers of religion, Christian apologists, and anyone who has a serious interest in the topic.”

—Michael Licona, professor of New Testament studies, Houston Christian University

“Beyond any reasonable doubt, this massive, rigorous, highly informed tome increases Dr. Gary Habermas’s standing as the world’s leading expert on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. After an important section on the philosophy of history and methodology, Habermas dives into an analysis of minimal and known historical facts that everyone must explain, and he provides the data of the New Testament in assessing the best explanation. Honestly, it is hard to put into words what this volume accomplishes. There is no other book like it. If you are interested in the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, you simply must get this book.”

—J. P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

On the Resurrection, volume 1: Evidences

Copyright © 2024 by Gary Habermas

Published by B&H Academic

Brentwood, Tennessee

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-0877-6847-2

Dewey Decimal Classification: 232.97

Subject Heading: JESUS CHRIST--PASSION WEEK \ JESUS CHRIST--RESURRECTION \ JESUS CHRIST--APPEARANCES

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis in quotations is in the original.

Cover design by Emily Keafer Lambright. Cover illustration from Bibleboxone/Shutterstock and Anton Tokarev/istock.

29 28 27 26 25 24 RRD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table of Contents

1. Ancient Sources Abbreviation List

2. Introduction: The Task Ahead

3. Part 1: The Nature of Historical Research

1. 1: Philosophy of History

2. 2: Historiography: The Tools and Rules of the Discipline

3. 3: Historical Postmodernism

4. 4: The Minimal Historical Facts about Jesus

5. 5: Listing the Minimal Historical Facts

4. Part 2: Jesus: The Preliminaries

1. 6: The Existence of Jesus
2. 7: A Definition of Miracle
3. 8: Jesus the Healer

5. Part 3: The Minimal Historical Facts

1. 9: Minimal Fact 1: Jesus’s Death

2. Excursus 1: Jesus’s Death and Contemporary Scholarship

3. 10: Minimal Fact 2: The Disciples’ Experiences

4. 11: Minimal Fact 3: The Earliest Proclamation of the Gospel

5. Excursus 2: The Early Creedal Traditions

6. 12: Minimal Fact 4: The Disciples’ Transformations

7. 13: Minimal Fact 5: The Conversion of James

8. 14: Minimal Fact 6: The Conversion of Paul

6. Part 4: The Other Six Known Historical Facts

1. 15: The Empty Tomb
2. 16: Jesus’s Burial
3. 17: The Last Four Known Facts

7. Part 5: The Gospel Resurrection Data

1. 18: The Gospels and Resurrection Testimony
2. 19: The Gospel of Mark
3. 20: The Gospel of Matthew
4. 21: The Gospel of Luke
5. 22: The Gospel of John
6. 23: Acts 1:1–11

7. 24: Noncanonical Christian Authors (AD 95–160)

8. Conclusion: From the Disciples’ Experiences to REAL Appearances

9. Evidential Near-Death Experiences

10. Outlined Data in Favor of the Minimal Facts

11. Summary Outline of the Second Six Known/Accepted Non-Minimal Facts Data

12. Author Index
13. Subject Index
14. Scripture Index

Guide

1. Introduction: The Task Ahead

2. Table of Contents

Page Numbers
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
376
375
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054

List of Images

1. halftitle

2. titlepage

Ancient Sources
Abbreviation List

Early Jewish Writings

11Q19 | Temple Scroll (Dead Sea Scrolls)
2 Macc. | 2 Maccabees
3 Macc. | 3 Maccabees

Josephus

| Ag. Ap. | Against Apion
| Ant. | Jewish Antiquities
| J.W. | Jewish War
| Life | Life

Lam. Rab. | Lamentations Rabbah

Philo

| Embassy | Embassy to Gaius
| Flacc. | Against Flaccus
| Spec. | On the Special Laws

Tob. | Tobit
Wis. | Wisdom of Solomon

Greco-Roman Writings

Aristotle

| Rhet. | Rhetoric

Cassius Dio

| Hist. rom. | History of Rome

Cicero

| Fat. | Concerning Fate
| Phil. | Phillipics

Horace

| Ep. | Letters

Iamblichus

| Bab. | Babylonica

Juvenal

| Sat. | Satires

Lucian

| Peregr. | Death of Peregrinus

Plautus

| Poen. | Poenulus

Pliny the Younger

| Ep. | Letters

Plutarch

| Cleom. | Life of Cleomenes
| Per. | Pericles

Seneca

| Dial. | Dialogues

Suetonius

| Aug. | Augustus
| Cal. | Gaius Caligula
| Claud. | Claudius
| Dom. | Domitian
| Galb. | Galba
| Jul. | Julius
| Tib. | Tiberius
| Tit. | Titus
| Ves. | Vespasian

Tacitus

| Ann. | Annals
| Hist. | Historiae

Valerius Maximus

| De fact. | De factis

Early Christian Writings

1 Clem. | 1 Clement

Acts Andr. | Acts of Andrew

Ap. John | Apocryphon of John

Aristides

| Apol. | The Apology of Aristides

Barn. | Epistle of Barnabas

Did. | Didache

Eusebius

| Hist. eccl. | Ecclesiastical History

Gos. Pet. | Gospel of Peter

Gos. Thom. | Gospel of Thomas

Gos. Truth | Gospel of Truth

Ignatius (Ign.)

| Eph. | To the Ephesians
| Magn. | To the Magnesians
| Phld. | To the Philadelphians
| Pol. | To Polycarp
| Rom. | To the Romans
| Smyrn. | To the Smyrnaeans
| Trall. | To the Trallians

Ireneaus

| Haer. | Against Heresies

Jerome

| Vir. ill. | On Illustrious Men

Justin

| 1 Apol. | First Apology
| 2 Apol. | Second Apology
| Dial. | Dialogue with Trypho

Origen

| Cels. | Against Celsus

Polycarp (Pol.)

| Phil. | To the Philippians

Quintilian

| Decl. | Declamations

Sulpicius Severus

| Chr. | Chronicle

Tertullian

| Apol. | Apology
| Spect. | On Spectacles

Treat. Res. | Treatise on the Resurrection

Introduction: The Task Ahead

This text is the first of a four-volume project. The challenge of attempting to master the immense range of professional publications that address the end of Jesus’s life is so great that no less a scholar than Dale Allison has commented, “Even the experts cannot keep up any more [sic]. The number of publications has become as the sand of the sea.” Allison continues, “Attending the displays of new books at the annual Society of Biblical Literature meetings produces in me mostly despair, because I know that amid the myriads of throw-away books, are thousands of valuable pages that I will never turn.”1 Allison’s statements very much apply to this research as well.

Nonetheless, issues such as this have not kept scholars like Allison from pushing ahead in their research and publishing in spite of not having gained an exhaustive amount of information on a particular subject, among other issues. While realizing that the entire range of data can never be mastered, there can still be profound value in digging deeply, reading, contemplating, and writing about the works of those who have done substantial amounts of research on their subjects. In spite of the thousands of pages in this study, it is in this sense that the present work makes no pretense to being exhaustive.

The Sources

The research and preparation for these four volumes on the death and resurrection of Jesus grew from a PhD dissertation on these same subjects that preceded this present study by decades. Long after the dissertation, I began assembling a resurrection bibliography on these subjects, currently standing at some 4,500 sources. These entries largely date from 1975 to the present and were originally gathered to simply update the sources in the dissertation by describing the more recent state of the questions. At the outset, this effort did not extend very far beyond updating references and taking some notes, but this slowly grew into the current, full-fledged document, one chapter at a time.

Questions have arisen often pertaining to the number of sources studied that contributed to the bulk of this overall topic. The bibliographic texts noted above were often reviewed, with more than 2,000 of them becoming the primary basis for these four volumes. Originating separately long after the dissertation, this present project was built on this research foundation of specific works on these subjects. The majority of these 2,000 works were dissected in all their significant, exhausting plethora of details. These research notes themselves are anticipated to be published in volume 3 of this work, as they chart the views of major critical scholars, reaching close to 1,500 manuscript pages and covering 140 separate categories or questions regarding the last days of Jesus’s life. This project has developed into sort of a who’s who on the resurrection pertaining to these researchers and their positions on these various issues. A large number of additional reference texts were also invoked, as they are always necessary for research. So far, the overall post-dissertation part of the project has taken roughly twenty years and still counting, with much work still needing to be completed.

Scholars Who Qualify in the Research

Occasionally, I receive communications that accusingly state, without knowledge of this process, that there were probably favorites in the choice of sources, being slanted toward conservative authors. Actually, the opposite is easily true and for more than one reason. The entire second volume in this study deals with naturalistic and other alternative theses to Jesus’s resurrection, meaning that these texts had to be scrupulously gathered and analyzed. True, these views were critiqued, but even that assumes that they were first studied in much detail. In the entire third volume, by far the majority of the highlighted scholarly views are those of skeptics, unbelievers, or liberals. In all cases, whether the scholars describe themselves as non-Christians or Christians, skeptical, liberal, moderate, or conservative makes no difference in whether they are counted in this work. In fact, altogether, scholars to the left are far more prominent in this study than are conservatives.

Further, citations appear from sources that disfavor the stated goal of this work throughout, namely, that only accredited scholars in relevant fields would be counted. Yet, often the most radical objections were made by those not possessing the stated academic definition of “critical scholar,” but they were still noted. For example, if a scholar has an accredited terminal degree in the area being discussed, that would most likely qualify them. Actually we have even gravitated quite purposefully to the “more radical” of these authors. Moreover, these authors are generally listed first in footnotes, especially when more crucial points are being made about historical or other matters. So it should be noted that descriptors such as “atheist,” “agnostic,” or “self-described non-Christian” are often used, not pejoratively but to let the reader know how much they are being studied for their views. All of this is set out in detail early in this volume and this will not be repeated further.

The General Overlay of Volume 1

The overall theme of this first volume concerns the historical data that may be brought to bear with regard to the status of the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and subsequent appearances of Jesus. As will be stated often, the “minimal facts method” will be pursued here, making use of the best-evidenced historical facts to argue the case for the death and resurrection of Jesus. Next, a few other historical facts also will be presented, followed by viewing a rather different argument altogether that favors the historical reliability of the Gospel appearance texts. That these data are also accepted virtually unanimously by scholars in the field regardless of their school of thought points secondarily to some common ground for discussion. Part 1, titled “The Nature of Historical Research,” is devoted to historical investigation, such as the nature of the philosophy of history, the actual work of historiography, and the influence of postmodernism in the field of history. Based on this foundation, the nature of the minimal facts method and how it functions in the argument is also pursued in the next two chapters. Note that in footnotes, parenthetical directives to “see” a certain chapter and note, presented in the form “(see chap. X, n. X)” at the end of a source citation, refer to previous chapter and note numbers in this volume rather than in the source just named.

Part 2, “Jesus: The Preliminaries,” treats matters before the study of the resurrection. These subjects include Jesus’s existence as a historical person, a definition of miracle, and whether Jesus was a healer.

Next, part 3, “The Minimal Historical Facts,” consists of a plethora of arguments favoring the six minimal facts. This portion is arguably the heart of the overall argument in volume 1. Included in this segment are two additional chapters (marked “Excursus”) that present further components of this overall minimal facts argument by explaining additional material in the preceding chapter. These data are recognized to be historical events by virtually all critical scholars who study and publish on these matters. This section of material is the heart of this first volume.

Next, an additional six historical facts are initially enumerated, explained, and considered. Titled “The Other Six Known Historical Facts,” part 4 highlights these half dozen additional occurrences that are not part of the minimal facts but that present well-evidenced cognate themes. These events are included in that they are well-known and accepted by the majority of researchers, though not all of them.

Shifting the scene to a wider range of material, part 5 is titled “The Gospel Resurrection Data.” It views the resurrection material contained in each of the four canonical Gospels plus the opening verses of the book of Acts.

Early noncanonical sources and authors are treated at various points throughout the volumes in this study. These are viewed both as possible contributions to the overall case as well as critical interactions with the canonical material.

The final chapter in this work is titled “Conclusion: Moving from the Disciples’ Experiences to Real Appearances.” It explores the subject of whether the disciples actually experienced Jesus walking, talking, and interacting with them after his death. The issue, then, is whether Jesus was seen again after he had died, not whether these sightings could have been miracles performed by God or were otherwise of a supernatural nature. Whether these true observations of Jesus could have been miraculous or supernatural in nature is not treated in this volume but arises in volume 4.

Three appendices close this initial work. Evidential near-death experiences are considered as nonmiraculous indications of at least an initial afterlife, since such existence could be an extension, at least in some sense, of resurrection life. Lastly, two very brief outlines close this work. As the central consideration in this volume, the overall case for the historicity of the six minimal facts is stated more succinctly in outline form. This is followed by a second brief outline of the next six non-minimal facts.

A Few Acknowledgments

The first appendix in this volume on near-death experiences is included here by the kind permission of the Discovery Institute Press, where a slightly edited form of this essay appeared in the volume titled Minding the Brain, edited by Brian Krouse, Angus Menuge, and Robert Marks, which was published in January 2023. An initial acknowledgment is made to the Discovery Institute for this authorization.

Along the way, this project has benefited mightily from many research assistants and others who have provided yeoman service on a large number of fronts. Many of these graduate students were chiefly tasked with tracking down innumerable stacks of resurrection publications. Upon graduating, these scholars in their own right went on to other universities and seminaries, each earning their PhDs elsewhere in cognate areas. These included Jason Hauffe, Myron Penner, Sean Turchin, David Pensgard, Ronnie Campbell, and Benjamin Shaw, each of whom made sacrifices on behalf of this project and need to be saluted.2 Each was exceptionally competent and performed his work in exemplary fashion, and their roles were integral to the process and completion of this work.

The last research assistant here deserves additional mention. Ben Shaw has worked in this capacity for the longest time—some ten years and counting—and this stretch continues past this present volume. Having written both his MA thesis and PhD dissertation on historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection and having over twenty publications of his own in largely similar areas, he has been an invaluable assistant. Further, he has worked in close proximity on this project during this entire time and has given almost every chapter in this volume a final and thorough reading, leading to many hours of fruitful discussion. His untiring work ethic over these years, in spite of having his own job and family, was an amazing sacrifice of devoted service. A better fit for this project could not have been envisioned.

Additionally, three established New Testament scholars checked the six chapters on the Gospels and Acts 1:1–11 after their completion. These researchers were Leo Percer, Randy Rheaume, and Matthew Halstead. Likewise, their assistance was invaluable precisely because they are specialists in crucial areas where additional eyes were needed. Another researcher, Brandan DeLorenzo, was exceptionally helpful chiefly in studying dozens of major critical scholars and their positions on the topics in this volume.

Each of these persons contributed an incredible amount of expertise to this venture, having worked long hours, especially when each had his own studies and projects (and usually a family as well). Others also played roles here and there in this endeavor. But they were always willing to do whatever was necessary. The project could not have succeeded without their demeanor, research capabilities, and encouraging attitudes.

Notes

1 Dale C. Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 13, emphasis added.

2 Campbell and Shaw are the only two in this group who remained at Liberty University for their PhDs. Currently, Campbell is the director of our residential PhD program in theology and has published several books and articles. Two other teaching assistants during this time, Caleb Turner and Joel Oates, helped occasionally with the bibliographic sources but were chiefly in charge of my graduate student graders.

Part 1

The Nature of Historical Research

1

Philosophy of History

Logically before the study of various historical epochs, key individuals, important times, and influential ideas throughout the centuries, a smaller number of scholars also discuss the far more theoretical areas of metahistory. Many historians understandably want to be left alone to just practice their craft by working in their own specialized areas of research, but someone has to do the more theoretical spadework and underpinnings as well.

In this chapter, we will introduce the initial subject of philosophy of history by unpacking a few of these more theoretical and academic questions. We will only be able to present a limited number of these items here, concentrating on those that most affect the topics engaged throughout this study, beginning with an overview of the relevant philosophical concepts. These include a preliminary definition of history as a discipline as well as a few concepts related to this definition. These definitional concepts will also serve to introduce a few of the cognate areas of study in the philosophy of history.

The chief focus of the next chapter will also explore the subject of historiography—how historical research is actually conducted. Taken from the Greek words for history (historia) and its recording or writing (graphē), this term involves the process to be pursued here. What practical steps are involved in ascertaining and pursuing historical investigation itself? How is the discipline of history actually researched and written? What tools does the historian bring to this study? What are the rules for utilizing these tools? This is what is chiefly thought of as the purview of history.

But then there are those who provide various critiques, as well, charging that only a comparatively small amount of historical knowledge may be gleaned from historical investigations, especially those in the distant past. This is a crucial area of study as well. After all, if the historical process itself were to be questioned severely, that could indeed have strong repercussions for our research on the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus. Hence, some of the most radical forms of these critiques will be considered next in a study of historical forms of postmodernism. Subsequent chapters throughout this research project will study many other general methodological doubts as well as specifically how these might apply to particular historical topics that pertain to our discussions in these volumes.

Introducing Philosophy of History

Philosophers of history often pursue the most intriguing issues of metahistory that ultimately bear on historical epistemology. Fascinatingly, many academicians who engage in this research are philosophers or professional historians. As a branch of study that resides in between these two disciplines, it is thus shared by both.

As a group, philosophers of history are concerned with an entire host of theoretical but crucial questions, many of which logically precede the study of historical persons and events. For example, what is the nature of the overall and underlining theory that constitutes the underpinnings of history as a discipline? Which existing theoretical option(s) should be utilized here? To begin, how might history even be defined? Strangely enough for some, this is not the simple and straightforward task that it may seem. Further questions include: Are there any interpretive schemata, either secular or religious, that may be capable of characterizing the entire process of history? Do its events move cyclically, linearly, haphazardly, or otherwise? Does history repeat itself? Whether events do or do not recur in some sense, what would that even indicate or look like?

Or further, is the overall process of history somehow predetermined so that certain events must occur in particular, precise ways regardless of other factors? Or is the flow of history a free progression of occurrences where more than one event is a possibility and truly free decisions can actually be made?1 Could the scientific laws of nature that that are so instructive in the better-known sciences to justify or explain regularities potentially explain human conduct as well?2

Moreover, should the discipline of history be considered a hard science like physics or chemistry?3 Does history exhibit any of the objective checks and balances often associated with the harder sciences?4 Or is historical study a “softer” social science like psychology, anthropology, or sociology? Or yet again, is history perhaps like none of these other subject areas? Are there various sorts of theories regarding the nature of past events? What about efforts to analyze historical trends? Can or should we learn lessons of ethical, political, or religious importance from the flow of events, either by participating in them or watching them from a distance?

One of the most crucial questions and perhaps even the preeminent inquiry of all, at least regarding our present study, pertains to whether what occurred in the past can even be known or ascertained in the first place.5 Or is the discipline of history simply a more subjective process, almost like some sort of art form or exercise in creative writing that only masquerades as an objective process? Or potentially far worse, is the study of history simply a method manipulated by unscrupulous persons for the purpose of persuading others to do their will, like power politics, and keeping people in line or making them behave a certain way? These specific aspects have actually been debated and pursued for millennia, but especially throughout the past century. This will be the chief focus of the next chapter.

The central emphasis in studying the philosophy of history has changed quite dramatically in recent decades. Up until a century ago, the way to study this subject was by juxtaposing several major, sweeping theories to study the overall purposes of history. The formulators of these often rather grandiose theses could be either religious or secular, but they shared one central goal: to explain the chief unifying or integrating themes behind the process of history. Which ideas, forces, or motifs lurk behind these world processes?

Influential candidates in these earlier discussions included Augustine’s (354–430) concept of events and ideas moving to and from the cross of Jesus Christ, which occupied the center of history. However, a later aspirant was Auguste Comte (1798–1857), who emphasized the importance of proceeding beyond religious or metaphysical ideas of the past to pursue scientific progress. Another influential alternative was Karl Marx’s (1818–1883) notions of interpreting history in terms of economics and class struggle.

Seeking to determine the central forces behind the world processes of the past, such “speculative” approaches dominated studies in philosophy of history for close to a couple thousand years. They were much more conducive to the more unified notions regarding the nature of reality held during these times by both religious and secular intellectuals alike. But during the past century, philosophy of history shifted its emphases, giving way to a much more “critical” outlook. It grew steadily to center on posing, debating, and answering the sorts of theoretical questions raised in the long list above.

These two branches of inquiry within the discipline of philosophy of history have widely and regularly been termed the “speculative” and the “critical” approaches.6 The former often seem to be viewed today as an older, frankly less sophisticated way to approach the subject.7 It is sometimes even regarded as a rather naive approach. Major thinkers of the past were no doubt highly intelligent, but the more contemporary emphases on analytical, departmentalizing, and specializing interests makes unified thinking of these sorts very difficult. For Hans Meyerhoff, it was primarily the growing influence of historicism and more scientifically empirical studies that spelled the defeat of the speculative ventures.8 Jörn Rüsen continued further into the rise of certain more radical trends that opposed the “great narratives.”9

Varying reasons have been proposed for these changes, but by far the more common approach at present is to pursue the study of philosophy of history by addressing critical questions such as those mentioned above. As some might inquire, how can a search for unifying concepts proceed to tie together the entire historical process when the most dominating question in recent years is whether, and to what extent, historical facts may even be known at all?10

A Concept of History

The term history is defined and employed somewhat variously by different researchers, though with many similarities being found among the details.11 To some extent, this research is carried out in an interdisciplinary fashion as well as over differing time periods.12 No uniform definition is agreed upon by everyone, especially regarding the finer details, while numerous definitions, interpretations, and other approaches are regularly utilized.13 It is not our purpose here to survey these contemporary views.14 Still, there is at least some widespread agreement concerning certain features of the concept of history.

Historians generally acknowledge that their subject includes at least two major components—the actual events themselves and the records of these events, which usually includes factors such as the scholar’s interpretations.15 Thus the discipline is chiefly concerned at least with what has happened in the past along with the accounts of these occurrences. These accounts must include and cope with the ensuing evaluations, interpretations, and debates, too, which may frequently be the most difficult aspects of all. This formulation will comprise the core understanding of our use of the term history in this study. Other elements are certainly involved, and we will address a few of them presently, but these two major ideas are essential and recur most often in historian’s definitions, composing the foundation of this discipline.

Other factors relevant to this discussion need to be mentioned as well, if only briefly. First, historical events do not somehow carry their own meaning along with them, as if to say that once an event is ascertained or recognized, there is some sort of immediate aha moment where the meaning is known directly and strictly from what occurred alone. Explained another way, there is no such thing as brute-fact events that are self-interpreting by their very nature. Some historical events may seem obvious to many and may appear to involve pretty clear meanings for the majority of those involved, but events need to be seen within a context to derive their full meaning.

This principle is hardly even contested in the scholarly community. Philosopher Stephen Davis states it very succinctly: “But there is no such thing as bare, uninterpreted evidence or experience, and so the way we evaluate the evidence we encounter will inevitably depend to a great extent on our worldview.”16 Another philosopher who agrees is Alan G. Padgett.17

New Testament scholar James Tabor also agrees: “It is impossible to gaze upon ‘facts’ without interpretation. All historians come to their investigations with selective criteria of judgment forged by both acknowledged and unrecognized predisposed interests and cultural assumptions.”18 As in the other disciplines, this sort of response is standard fare in New Testament history and theology as well.19

As a result, various subjective factors are always present whenever history is recorded. Subjective considerations include a variety of meanings, but what they have in common is that each one represents a particular angle, some sort of bias, or a perspective that is imposed on the event from the outside. It might be explained as glasses that color one’s personal world in particular ways, consisting of built-in perspectives on what occurred. If someone looks at the world through rose-colored glasses, they will view items through an optimistic, positive lens. But many others will often equally disagree with that, perhaps employing negative perspectives.

One issue is that there can be many subjective angles from which an event can be viewed and interpreted. Thus, for every touchdown scored or home run hit, there are both those who are absolutely elated as well as those who are emotionally devastated. Then there are many others watching sporting events who do not take either view, and some of these do not care one iota. Then of course others are not watching the game at all! Subjective factors vary widely among observers, definitely reveal personal components, are often asserted as true or false, and are often at great variance with the views of others!

Obviously, some personal angles are more egregious than others, and some seem not to involve any bias at all. To give a more innocuous example, the historian must select the material that she will (and will not) present. Why should she consider this or that topic as opposed to another subject? The answer often involves some personal interest on the part of the researcher. But even picking that particular subject over another involves an angle on the topic. It is often stated that the actual historical event either occurred or did not. But recording what happened and what did not, as well as providing an interpretation for the event, introduces various subjective factors.

From the more offensive end of the scale, we often cry foul when a chief political journalist, broadcaster, correspondent, or policy interpreter is from the same party and persuasion as the individual being covered in the report. What if a judge has a vested interest in the life of the person being tried? What if the historian personally despises the group of people she is researching? What if the head umpire or referee used to play for one of the teams participating in the game?

For Oxford University philosopher W. H. Walsh, these subjective perspectives can arise in at least four areas: private or personal preferences, prejudices from the group with which one is connected, differing historical understandings, and philosophical ideas arising from one’s worldview.20 Elsewhere, Walsh thinks that while the writer’s subjectivity is certainly present, it need not necessarily oppose an interminable barrier that will impede her from obtaining historical truth. Rather, this subjectivity must be expected and allowed for, and its effects can be ascertained and offset.21

Oxford University historian William Wand notes that our approach to history ought to be cautious, as we must detect any subjective bias involved. But like Walsh, Wand agrees that we are capable of making adjustments for the amount of interpretation involved and still reach solid historical conclusions.22 As Australian historian Paul Barnett remarks, no one is exempt from “attitudes, biases, and prejudice.”23 Other historians have also voiced their own agreement that the presence of various subjective factors is unavoidable in the writing and recording of history.24

Former Cambridge University New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham explains one of the crucial issues here like this: “All history—meaning all that historians write, all historiography—is an inextricable combination of fact and interpretation, the empirically observable and the intuited or constructed meaning.”25 Tabor speaks quite similarly: “History is not merely an assemblage of constructed facts. It also involves an attempt to retrieve and imagine a past that we can no longer see or touch. History touches the heart as well as the head.”26 Related statements from scholarly publications in New Testament theology are easily found from a wide variety of angles.27

For many researchers, it is the person’s worldview that exerts the singular greatest influence on their perception of the historical facts. For instance, often if the facts conflict with someone’s overall perspective on the world, the facts will not even be considered no matter what the evidence may indicate. To a certain extent, worldviews often hinge on our likes and dislikes, built according to the way individuals actually wish and hope that the world really exists. So in spite of many who may wish that something were not this way, likes and dislikes often shape our worldviews, and these views often trump how we interpret the facts. Wishing that this were not the way people perceive things does not change it. Not always, but this may mean that, for many, if the facts get in the way of what we want out of our lives, we will not listen.28

Earlier we viewed another philosophical comment regarding the influence of our concept of reality. Davis argued that how we treat and evaluate the evidence that we find “will inevitably depend to a great extent on our worldview.”29 This position is held quite commonly among scholars.30 It needs to be recalled here that judging evidence according to our dearly loved prior wishes and desires regarding the world is simply a huge example of our subject at hand. That is, we all have perspectives and even biases that affect the way we write, read, and speak. In short, we are all prejudiced.

Beyond these modern examples, historians have discovered many instances of biased reports in ancient history that may illustrate the idea here a little better. The Roman historian Tacitus can serve as a bit of a test case for us, especially in that he was writing less than a century after the reports of Jesus’s death and resurrection and only a few years after the noncanonical Christian authors Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. This chronological approximation is helpful.

But Tacitus is known for being somewhat prejudiced and even inaccurate in his writing. One example is the “aristocratic bias” that he exhibits. Further, he was convinced that the “highest function” of historical writing was drawing moral lessons from the material. However, not everyone derives the same ethical lessons from events. Other times, historical inaccuracies tarnish his text, like crediting speeches to people who never spoke them or improperly reporting particular details in battle accounts. Editor and historian Moses Hadas maintains that Tacitus’s interpretations “must often be challenged” because he “could see only through his own lenses which were strongly colored.”31

So, must Tacitus be rejected as a reliable source for ancient Roman history? Do these subjective elements from his writings nullify the information that he sought to relay? Actually, as strange as it may seem to us today, Hadas explains rather paradoxically that Tacitus was Rome’s greatest historian.32 Hadas details the situation this way: “One may well ask how trustworthy the resultant history is. A modern historian guilty of such faults would surely lose all credit. . . . With allowance made for rhetorical embellishment customary in his day, and within the limits of distortion which his own views of morality and politics make inevitable, Tacitus never consciously sacrifices historical truth.”33

Contemporary historian Michael Grant agrees that Tacitus is not an isolated case from the ancient world. For example, the Greek “father of history,” Herodotus, blends legends and anecdotal material into his accounts. Another ancient Roman historian, Livy, allowed for the operation of omens. Even worse, both Livy and Tacitus describe events that took place long before their time, sometimes as much as five centuries earlier! These gaps resulted in frequent inconsistencies and contradictions in these ancient historical writings.34

Yet, contemporary historians still do not despair with regard to reconstructing major events from ancient times. As asserted by Hadas, recent scholars can make allowances not only for the subjective, prejudiced facets involved in the recording and interpretation of these events, but even for incorrect data. The reconstructing of ancient history relies on the scholar’s ability to determine the events of the past in spite of these deterrents.35

This is our research goal throughout these volumes: to search for and recognize the subjective aspects of the reports that we will study while still ascertaining the historical core. Neither absolute certainty nor giving up on historical knowledge are required. Historical events still may be ascertained, as virtually all historical scholars allow. This will be pointed out in much detail as we move forward, with even postmodern historians and other skeptics allowing historical data. The principles we arrive at will then be applied when we investigate the death and resurrection of Jesus in later chapters. Although the events in question occurred long ago (though being much closer in time to those who actually wrote the accounts), historical investigation is still capable of ascertaining the data, as we have just seen. This is one of the chief reasons why the minimal facts method is taken here, due to the many strong arguments and considerations in favor of the facts that are used. It also accounts for why scholars virtually always agree with the resulting data.

Besides recognizing and dealing with the subjective factor in recording history, a second closely linked principle extends from our definition of history. Due to factors such as those which we have just discussed, historical research is incapable of reaching a place where it can rest totally assured of its findings. As with both the hard sciences as well as the softer social sciences, probability rules the search for evidence that is derived inductively. Therefore, whether we are dealing with physics, chemistry, or medicine on the one hand or psychology, sociology, or anthropology on the other, the nature of every inductive discipline is such that it cannot yield conclusions that are more than probable. This is the case with history as well.36

So historians realize that their conclusions must be couched in probabilistic terms. David Hackett Fischer employs “seven rules of thumb” in evaluating historical evidence. His fifth guide is “the rule of probability” because “all inferences from empirical evidence are probabilistic.”37 Wand asserts that we may not be as positive of the results of historical investigation as some have thought in the past. Still, our judgments must be made according to which facts are most likely true in terms of the historical evidence.38 For Barnett, this may be more crucial with regard to ancient historical accounts, and yet we still may have enough data to establish some highly evidential claims.39

Walsh, Hadas, Grant, Fischer, Wand, and Barnett along with a band of other historians such as those mentioned above are certainly not alone here, for the use of historical sifting regarding the available data to arrive at probable arguments is simply required and even assumed in historical research today. As mentioned, this is how inductive studies work.40

New Testament historians and theologians agree regarding the use of probability as well. This includes very skeptical researchers such as Gerd Lüdemann,41 A. C. Wedderburn,42 and to a lesser degree John A. T. Robinson.43 Many other New Testament historians and theologians also agree with the reliance on the canons of probability regarding the strength of their historical research. Like the historians above, this is a standard conclusion of their work too.44

More specifically, James D. G. Dunn states succinctly, “Here it is as well to remember that historical methodology can only produce probabilities.”45 Dunn further explains the process this way: “The critical scholar learns to make carefully graded judgments which reflect the quality of the data—almost certain (never simply ‘certain’), very probable, probable, likely, possible, and so on. In historical scholarship the judgment ‘probable’ is a very positive verdict.”46

Luke Timothy Johnson states, “Because of its constructive character, historiography is also properly revisionist . . . an appropriate revision occurs when new evidence comes to light that fundamentally affects an earlier portrayal.”47 Tabor casts a similar point in personal terms: “With every good historian I stand ever open to critique and revision. . . . A conscious humility before evidence is absolutely essential.”48

Dale Allison points out that some sort of “proof” is not available to the historian and can “never be achieved because possible alternatives can always be imagined.”49 Presumably, Allison means that as long as potential alternative scenarios exist as possible explanations for events, even if they are lesser options, the chief thesis can still only be cast in terms of probabilities.

It should be noted carefully, even from a critical perspective, that only being able to arrive at probable historical knowledge is definitely not the same as being unsure of the past, or only being able to draw doubtful historical conclusions, or shrugging our shoulders and answering that we cannot know anything about bygone days. The concept of inductive probability does not preclude achieving what we might call practical certainty in matters of well-established historical findings, as has been noted.

So when might historical occurrences be considered as firmly established according to these principles? Such a designation might describe events that are rendered likely or even very likely according to careful research, especially when these events have been established over long time periods and in the absence of viable contrary findings. In other words, the best-established historical events are those confirmed by painstaking research into the relevant data, without evidentially feasible challenges, especially having repeatedly withstood the eye of critical scrutiny.

Even the possibility that some events may be challenged later, including the prospect of future reevaluation, does not preclude a strong notion of certainty from being held in terms of probability or even high probability. After all, we cannot hold in abeyance all of history, science, medicine, or other inductive areas of study throughout our lives in the constant fear that something may be challenged!

It is helpful to be reminded constantly that this is nothing out of the ordinary even if we are considering similar choices made in everyday life. We act regularly throughout our entire lives based on probabilities. Not believing or acting when the evidence is strong could even lead to a life-or-death crisis. For instance, taking necessary medicines when required could account for healing, even though the physician only says that such a prescription will “probably” work. Or, if the news reports a specific type of poisoning in recalled food, even though the odds of coming across precisely the same issue are often very small, we often avoid that sort of food until the danger is over.

Or again, we may invest in the stock market on the basis of research which shows that it is likely to be a good time to buy, even though we are acutely aware that such a decision could be absolutely disastrous. Many of us choose to stay indoors and even take cover during a tornado warning, even though a tornado is only deemed to be a likely event (or perhaps no more than just a possible occurrence). Simply driving a vehicle anywhere involves the possibility of dying, as we all know, but we clearly act on the probabilities. We thus use and value probabilities in everyday life, sometimes even while making life-saving decisions.

The point of all of these examples is to bring to our attention that our very practical, everyday lives are literally filled with probabilistic choices, where the wise person (or might we say the alive person!) is the one who makes the best selections. And the best decisions are almost always the ones that are based not on our whims, feelings, or ungrounded beliefs, but those that rest firmly on the current state of the best data. Interestingly enough, Dunn states, “Probability, we now realize, is much more integral to daily living than was previously understood.”50

It should be acknowledged that if additional data or a plausible alternative hypothesis casts doubt on an event, it might be necessary to reopen an investigation. But precluding the appearance of such evidential contrary material, the fact may be viewed as virtually certain when defined in practical terms. We do not need to doubt Julius Caesar’s assassination, Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, or the election of Abraham Lincoln as the sixteenth president of the United States of America. These facts are well-established at this time and thus can be known probabilistically as highly likely.51

In this sense, the historian locates the best data when she accurately performs the investigation, applies the appropriate standards of criticism, and determines the outcome according to the canons of probability. The scholar also needs to be open to additional challenges entailing further defenses or adjustments. But again, decisions need to be made when the canons of good research have been met. Oftentimes, deciding not to choose is still to decide by indecision. This is true in everyday life, even in life-threatening situations, just as it is in the halls of the university.

It certainly has not been our purpose to deal exhaustively with the concept of history.52 Yet a contemporary treatment of the subject ought to include at least these components. We will refer to history as both the occurrence of past events as well as their recording. Some scholars will include interpretations of these occurrences as well. Recognizing the inevitable influence of various species of subjective elements, allowance must be made for such aspects in the best possible way for the strongest data to be obtained. Realizing also that history, like other inductive disciplines, deals with probabilities, we need to ascertain as nearly as possible those facts which are indeed the most likely.

As is the case with probabilities and uncertainties, we must be as open as possible to novel events. Such is the nature of inductive studies. Therefore, events ought not be ruled out or predetermined (either scientifically or historically) before being researched. A thorough investigation of the evidence is required. Events that are firmly established by historical investigation may be regarded as practically certain according to the available data.

The Debate regarding Our Knowledge of the Past: From Positivism to Postmodernism

It has been mentioned that many of the most insightful dialogues over numerous critical questions in the philosophy of history occurred in the century from 1860 to 1960. Many of the theoretical issues hinted at earlier in this chapter were discussed and debated during this time. Some crucial agreement resulted from these interactions as well. Here we will briefly outline certain features of these vital discussions before moving forward to the growing focus on postmodern trends. Throughout this chapter, we are primarily interested in the scholarly ability to acquire historical data regarding the past. Several lessons will hopefully emerge from this discussion that will be applicable to the remainder of our study of the death and resurrection of Jesus.53

During the middle of the nineteenth century, German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886) advocated a research method that was later treated as a species of historical positivism. It became very influential over the remainder of the century, especially in western European, British, and American circles. This methodology emphasized using thorough, painstaking analysis to discover cold, hard historical facts. The operative phrase that described von Ranke’s search is variously translated as history “as it actually occurred” or “how it actually was.”54 This approach was believed to be sufficient to determine the data from the past in an objective manner, which could be reconstructed without bias, just as in the other hard sciences.

Ranke was not the only scholar at this time who considered history to be one of the sciences and characterized it as a disciplined, methodical, and precise methodology. Some of these researchers also thought that universal laws dictated the bounds of history and the other disciplines, similar to the laws of nature. French philosopher Auguste Comte proposed that such laws applied to all areas of learning. Further, he thought he had properly delineated these natural decrees through the subjects of history and sociology, even while others were doing so in the sciences.

German philosopher Karl Marx (1818–1883) likewise shared the notion that the scientific unpacking of history’s laws would lead to the natural laws that governed societal development as a whole. British historian Henry Buckle (1821–1862) also held that the universal laws of nature revealed in the discipline of history could be discovered by scientific methodology.

By applying these universal laws properly with their meticulous and methodical procedures, these figures thought the past could be reconstructed rather precisely. Moreover, contrary to the views of many scholars, these researchers thought this process could be carried out without any interference from personal prejudice or other forms of subjectivity.

Though this objective strain of historiography was quite influential in a number of venues, new trends began to swing quite far in the other direction by the end of the nineteenth century. A far more relativistic tendency started gaining momentum in both philosophical and historical studies, striking at the heart of the rather short-lived objectivist trend. Over against those earlier positivistic proclivities, this latter emphasis is usually associated with idealistic philosophy sometimes inspired by the ideas of Immanuel Kant and Georg W. F. Hegel. During the next few decades, opposing ideas were leveled against the earlier position that history was a hard science governed by laws and conducted by utilizing the same objective methodological techniques.

German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) was an advocate of this emerging idealistic position in opposition to the positivistic trends. While he separated the historical method from that of the natural sciences, he still held the prevalent ideas that historical data could be derived empirically and known objectively. However, true knowledge of the past was believed to be gained by “lively visualization” that projected back “into a work or person,” allowing one to “relive” the past in some sense!55

The more radical perspective here was not so much that historical research could be conducted per se, but the emphasis on the historian’s more subjective role in the process. A major difference was revealed in the emphasis on subjective biases that were thought to wield much greater influence than previously considered. These prejudices and preconceptions were viewed as being much more pervasive in nature, with historians themselves having their own personal, political, social, and religious leanings, not to mention contrasting worldviews as a whole.

Despite agreement that past events could be researched and ascertained factually, particularly where historians who held dissimilar philosophical positions still agreed on the data, the two positions were more dramatically contrasted in issues pertaining to the interpretation of these events. The question of subjective tendencies was obviously the principal realm where these differences were the most apparent.

After Dilthey, two other prominent idealistic historians took an even more radical path toward subjectivity, and their views influenced historians through the first few decades of the twentieth century. Italian historian Benedetto Croce (1866–1952) and Oxford University philosopher of history Robin Collingwood (1889–1943) viewed all history as a contemporary exercise, in that it was to be relived in the modern historian’s thoughts.56 While Collingwood was not as extreme or as mystical as Croce,57 the former still concluded, “The history of thought, and therefore all history, is the re-enactment of past thought in the historian’s own mind.”58 More obviously, then, there are indeed some enormous differences between the positivists (or realists) and the idealists with regard to the path to historiography, especially in subjective matters such as the interpretation and evaluation of the data.59

While these trends were manifest more on the European front, a few American historians also took their own relativistic steps. Most American historians “did not share the German agony over history’s access to truth. They remained convinced that scientific history would eventually bring reliable and valid results. . . . Only a few American historians, among them Carl L. Becker and Charles Beard, engaged in more serious discussion of historical objectivity and truth.”60 For Becker (1873–1945), we do not have historical facts per se, rather, only their affirmations and interpretations.61 Beard (1874–1948) concurred, since Ranke’s view of “neutral or scientific history reached a crisis” and had been both “challenged and rejected” due to the subjectivity of the research.62

However, toward the middle of the twentieth century, the more traditional approaches to historiography were gaining momentum again. Richard Evans explains it this way: “This reassertion of historical objectivity came at a time in the 1950s and 1960s when the historical profession was reestablishing itself, undergoing slow but steady growth.”63 Gilderhus adds the realization from this same period of time that “historians can sacrifice conceptions of objectivity only at their own risk.”64 In his acclaimed summary of historical trends, University of Chicago historian Peter Novick agrees with this assessment, arguing that after World War II the historical relativism that had gained some ground earlier was increasingly attacked by other scholars. This critique became so strong that while historians Beard and Becker were credited with refuting the “brute facts” view of historical occurrences, their supporters “were increasingly reluctant to defend their teachings.” In fact, besides the question of objectivity alone, “dozens of commentators deplored the effect of relativism on historians’ morale.”65

Nonetheless, especially on a couple of the more central issues, much synthesis already had taken place by this time between the two broad, predominant historical positions on the subject of the extent to which historical events of the past could be ascertained. The large majority of historians, even across “party lines,” continued to pursue the probable knowledge of past occurrences by utilizing the tools of historical research. While hardly being disputed anyway when getting right down to the essentials, particularly when the research was done carefully, these trends were nonetheless still a victory for the historical realists.

But the idealists had also gained some ground due to the growing change on virtually all sides in taking seriously the limitations imposed by various sorts of subjective factors. In short, this synthesis recognized the influence of more biased considerations that continued to restrict the objectivity of research while still maintaining agreement concerning our ability to discover probable historical data by means of researching the past and determining what most likely occurred.66 Novick refers to this partial solution as a move toward convergence.67

Conclusion

As noted by Evans, Gilderhus, and Novak, among others, scholars moved toward the midpoint of the twentieth century with the predominant position of either espousing or at least allowing for the existence of actual historical data. To this extent, the “objectivists” had emerged from the fray as the victors in the sense that they had defended their single most crucial tenet, though they may have been wounded in the process. The consensus position was that many historical facts of the past could be studied, investigated, and known according to probability. It is fair to say, however, that this tenet was rarely if ever truly questioned by the idealists, at least systematically.68 As Becker stated after mentioning particular historical data, “No one doubts it.”69

Nevertheless, though virtually none of even the more relativistic historians among the idealists would dispute the existence of knowable data, these facts were interpreted through the lens of the pervasive subjective elements. As Becker continues after his comment directly above, “But taken by itself the fact is nothing, means nothing.”70 The idealists had also won a few skirmishes of their own as well. After all, the assurance that had been achieved concerning historical events was indeed a chastened brand of knowledge anyway, since certainty was never available in inductive matters.71 Further, it was well-established and accepted that researchers were beset by their own biases of various sorts, and these had to be avoided assiduously. Many of the ensuing questions that resulted from this historical controversy are pursued in the next few chapters.

Notes

1 Surprisingly enough for some readers, these last issues reach far beyond what more theological readers might think of as being related to the “Calvinism-Arminian” discussions. For example, many atheistic thinkers are determinists, holding that history is not a process of free choices but rather one where naturalistic panorama can only occur in particular ways. Of course, determinists of various sorts will also disagree even strenuously with one another too, just as those on the other side might also do.

Ernest Nagel is an example of such a scholar who concedes willingly that his deterministic view of human history is held in opposition to the almost-unanimous convictions of contemporary physicists. Moreover, these scientific conclusions have affected the views of historians too, in that the accepted scientific view against a deterministic universe has sometimes weighed heavily to turn historians in a similar direction. Ernest Nagel, “Determinism in History,” in Philosophical Analysis and History, ed. William H. Dray (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 355.

Nagel formulates five primary reasons to explain why so many contemporary historians have generally rejected historical determinism. (1) No developmental laws, patterns, principles, or precepts exist in history that would be capable of determining certain historical outcomes in advance of their occurrence, as in the more experimental sciences. (2) Closely aligned here, the historical process cannot be predicted in advance, in spite of certain frequently repeated theories that dictate otherwise. Past events or other such data do not determine the outcome of the future. (3) Novel events and configurations of new ideas appear and recur throughout history. (4) Unexpected or seemingly chance events outside the ordinary also factor into the historical process. (5) Conflicting results occur when one attempts to apply the concepts of a deterministic world process to the freedom and moral duty exhibited by human beings. The notion of freedom is strongly realistic, persuasive, and appears to require a creative aspect in history that arises from human free choices. Some examples of Nagel’s five points are certainly illustrative and helpful. Who could have predicted or foreseen the wide dissemination of views and ideas brought about by a novel culture from a war-like community in third-century BC Macedonia? Or who would have anticipated the creative and resourceful civilization that would arise from a barbaric tribe of people residing on the banks of the Tiber River in the first century BC? These and other similar developments have convinced many historians to reject the deterministic interpretation of history. Once again, Nagel asserts that the opposition to determinism that emanates from modern physics has been quite a key factor here as well, exercising a direct influence on most historians. Nagel, “Determinism in History,” 355.

2 C. Behan McCullagh makes some intriguing applications of questions like these in The Logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective (London: Routledge, 2004), chaps. 3–4.

3 This is another subject that cannot be discussed here in any great detail, and certainly not one that may be settled once and for all. But suffice it to say briefly that recent scholarship has generally rejected the older claim that history is a hard science. In critical theology, for example, James D. G. Dunn concluded that the “Nineteenth Century Old Liberal Quest” (better known today as the “First Quest for the Historical Jesus”) thought that history was a science, but these views were mistaken. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 26–29. Luke Timothy Johnson reminds readers that history fails the scientific test on the grounds that it has no predictive abilities. Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus: Historical Criticism and Literary Criticism,” in The Historical Jesus: Five Views, ed. James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2009), 163. In the interface between science and theology, Robert John Russell makes some detailed and worthwhile brief comments on the subject of prediction as well as on the laws of science being descriptive instead of prescriptive. Russell, “Bodily Resurrection, Eschatology, and Scientific Cosmology,” in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments, ed. Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 19.

4 An occasional scholar, however, may argue that there is not as much separation as might be thought between history and the “harder” sciences. One exceptionally thoughtful example is an essay by Carol Cleland, who held positions in both the Department of Philosophy and the Center for Astrobiology at the University of Colorado. Among her arguments for what she terms historical science, she states in her initial abstract that “the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained” (987). One point she emphasizes is that “not all scientific hypotheses can be tested in the laboratory. Historical hypotheses that postulate particular past causes for currently observable phenomena provide good examples. Although historical hypotheses are usually associated with fields such as paleontology and archaeology, they are also common in geology, planetary science, astronomy, and astrophysics.” Pinpointing several particular avenues of scientific study, she continues, “Some familiar hypotheses are continental drift, the meteorite-impact extinction of the dinosaurs, the big bang origin of the universe, and, more recently, the hypothesis that there are planets orbiting distant stars. What all of these hypotheses have in common is explaining observable phenomena (e.g., the complementary shapes of the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa, the iridium and shocked quartz in the Cretaceous-Tertiary [K-T] boundary, the isotropic three-degree background radiation, the wobbling reflex motion of certain stars) in terms of their past causes” (987). She concludes that “when it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science” (990). See Carol E. Cleland, “Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method,” Geology 29 (2001): 987–90.

5 In fact, Burns and Rayment-Pickard report that recent writing in philosophy of history tends to be “dominated” by this and related issues. See Robert M. Burns and Hugh Rayment-Pickard, eds., Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 322.

6 It is noteworthy that Burns and Rayment-Pickard, in Philosophies of History, have edited one of the many volumes that helpfully includes readings and discussions from both interpretive traditions together in the same text. Other historians treat these distinctions in individual chapters, as in Mark T. Gilderhus, History and Historians: A Historiographical Introduction, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), chaps. 4–5. For more concerning these terms and distinctions, see the standard research encyclopedia articles by well-known scholars such as William H. Dray, “Philosophy of History,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1972); 2nd ed. (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 2006), 6:247; Patrick Gardiner, “The Philosophy of History,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. Sills (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 6:428–29. Bruce Mazlish’s text The Riddle of History: The Great Speculators from Vico to Freud (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) is a good indication that the speculative philosophies are still studied even during this growing shift in interest toward the critical debates. Mazlish begins his volume by juxtaposing these two terms (1–2). Another example of taking both approaches seriously is the two-volume work edited by philosopher Ronald Nash, titled Ideas of History (New York: Dutton, 1969), where the various selections are grouped separately. The books themselves describe nicely this twofold approach: volume 1 is subtitled Speculative Approaches to History, while volume 2 is subtitled The Critical Philosophy of History.

7 Of course, it seems that virtually every age tends to look askance at those scholars of other generations. Interestingly enough, C. S. Lewis termed this attitude “chronological snobbery” and pointed out that every epoch has its own foibles and illusions. For one of his discussions here, see Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1955), 207–8. Lewis made it known that he was one who, in some respects, preferred aspects of earlier ages; see Lewis, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 216. Lewis did so while realizing that each age had its own strengths. Thus for Lewis, we should “regard all Models in the right way, respecting each and idolising none” (222).

8 Hans Meyerhoff, “History and Philosophy: An Introduction,” in The Philosophy of History in Our Time, ed. Hans Meyerhoff (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), 9.

9 Jörn Rüsen, Evidence and Meaning: A Theory of Historical Studies, trans. Diane Kerns and Katie Digan (New York: Berghahn, 2017), 3, 73–74, 105–6, 210. Cf. the evaluation of Rüsen’s ideas in Benjamin C. F. Shaw and Gary R. Habermas, “Identifying Ontological Grounding for Metahistory,” Fides et Historia 50 (2018): 151–59, esp. 155–59.

10 Presumably, the issue could be viewed the other way around too. Leading scholars of past generations like Augustine, Comte, or Marx may have been quite willing to give their critique of recent, postmodern doubts concerning the recovery of any historical knowledge! In fact, it is possible that our serious entertaining of such doubts today might even cause these past scholars to conclude that we are the naive ones and thereby question our rational sensibilities!

11 For well-known and more traditional historian Geoffrey Elton, a historical fact is recognized as an event of the past of which traces remain in the present that can be utilized to determine what occurred. Elton, Return to Essentials: Some Reflections on the Present State of Historical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 27; cf. Richard Evans, who characterizes Elton’s view similarly, in Evans’s volume In Defense of History (New York: Norton, 1999), 65. For E. H. Carr, facts and interpretations must be linked. Carr states that a “mere fact about the past is transformed into a fact of history” upon being brought to light and recognized by scholars. See Carr, What Is History? (New York: Random House, 1961), 10–12. Much closer to Elton, Richard Evans refers to the confusion of attempting to combine occurrences and their interpretations. Then he asserts that “a historical fact is something that happened in history and can be verified as such through the traces history has left behind. Whether or not a historian has actually carried out the act of verification is irrelevant to its factuality; it really is there entirely independently of the historian. This is why historians commonly speak of ‘discovering’ facts about the past.” See Evans, In Defense of History, 66.

12 It should be noted carefully that in this chapter and also the next (though to a lesser degree), we will be combining our discussions and source citations quite purposely around the research of three different categories of scholars. (1) Many of the philosophers of history (including both philosophers and historians) whose research we will make much use of here did their research and publishing in the century of 1860–1960, and primarily in the second half of this range. The chief reason for including them is because many of the most insightful discussions over the issues in this chapter were debated in much detail and were largely settled precisely during this period of time. Therefore, not to hear from many of these scholars would deprive our treatment here not only of a historical perspective and background on these dialogues from the very beginning of the formative period of “critical” philosophy of history but would also remove from our research some of the very best scholarship on these topics. (2) Contemporary philosophers of history and other historians will also be cited in the interest of keeping us current. (3) Since the overall subject matter of this entire study is a series of historical topics that took place in a New Testament setting, historians, philosophers, and textual or theological scholars who specialize more selectively in the nuances of these areas will also be cited regularly, particularly to facilitate their insights that are derived from the languages, customs, and other features of this time period. The third category here is an example of the cross-disciplinary nature of these studies, too.

13 Gardiner, “Philosophy of History,” 6:428–33.

14 On a personal note, the chief historian on my PhD dissertation committee also made this point to me. After my summary of a number of definitions of the term history as provided by accomplished historians, the professor responded that since scholars really do not agree on a single definition, my discussion should not get bogged down in these details. Rather, he suggested that all the definitions should simply be deleted, settling instead for simply identifying for the reader which definition was going to be utilized in my own research.

15 Very similar renditions can be found frequently. For one such example from the field of history, see Constantin Fasolt, “History and Religion in the Modern Age,” History and Theory 45 (2006): 10. From a philosopher, see Stewart E. Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied: Examining Postmodernism, History, and Christian Faith (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 188. For a couple of examples in a New Testament context from N. T. Wright, see “In Grateful Dialogue: A Response,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 246; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 81–82.

16 Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 172.

17 Alan G. Padgett, “Advice for Religious Historians: On the Myth of a Purely Historical Jesus,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 293–94.

18 James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006), 316.

19 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 73; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 36, 82–88, 137, 398; Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 31, 122; David Samuel, “Making Room in History for the Miraculous,” Churchman 100 (1986): 106; Gerald O’Collins, The Easter Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1980), 61; Ben Witherington III, “Resurrection Redux,” in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, ed. Paul Copan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 129.

20 W. H. Walsh, “Can History Be Objective?,” in Meyerhoff, Philosophy of History, 216–24.

21 W. H. Walsh, Philosophy of History (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 101, 103.

22 William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1972), 432–33.

23 Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10.

24 Just a few instances include: Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). For a sampling of these more biased elements in ancient historiography, see Breisach’s comments on Cicero (58), Livy (64–65, 69), and Tacitus (68–69). For this aspect in modern historiography, see Breisach, 407–8. Cf. Gilderhus, History and Historians, 116–18; Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 200; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: An Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 180–81; John Tosh, The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, 3rd ed. (London: Pearson, 2002), 189–200; Gardiner, “Historiography,” 6:432–33.

25 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 3.

26 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 305.

27 James D. G. Dunn reports that the familiar problem for historians is that virtually no historical source is unbiased, so the investigator must be aware of the presuppositions of the text as well as his own! See Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 4. John Meier reminds us that there is no such thing as a neutral observer. See Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2016), 3:9–10, 625, 641, 646. Luke Timothy Johnson even goes as far as to say that historians construct history rather than simply discover it. Yet, he is exceptionally clear that he thinks historical events of the past can definitely be ascertained. Further, the texts themselves “are, in addition, inevitably biased.” See Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161–63.

28 For example, Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University zoologist, amazingly wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Quotation from Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review (January 9, 1997): 8 (emphasis added in two phrases “because . . . materialism” and “Moreover . . . door.” The other emphasized words are Lewontin’s).

Similarly, Thomas Nagel, a very influential atheist professor of both philosophy and law at New York University, explains that he personally does not want God to exist, and he does not want the universe to be of that theistic sort. So he really hopes that there is no God! See Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), chap. 7.

Sometimes even the naturalist is willing to check out the data. Unlike Lewontin but more fairly, like Nagel’s encouraging comments regarding Intelligent Design research, Gregory W. Dawes concludes that the naturalistic paradigm must operate but that this “is merely provisional, in the sense that it could be revised given appropriate evidence.” See Dawes, “A Defense of Naturalism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (2011): 5, 23.

As the best-known example in recent years, when prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew became a theist/deist, he made numerous comments that his “conversion” was due to his having to go along with the evidence. He indicated that strong evidence for God’s existence had emerged in recent years before his conversion. He also thought that both Bertrand Russell and J. L. Mackie would have been impressed with the latest scientific data. See Flew and Gary R. Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas,” Philosophia Christi 6 (2004): esp. 200–202, 210–11.

The skeptical scientist or philosopher may well retort that this sort of knife cuts both ways: religious believers clearly want God to exist, so what does this prove? Well, it shows two important things: (1) The case that we have been making here is indeed obviously so, at least for many, including scholars. We often do choose to believe particular things, even formulating our worldviews in a certain way, because that is what we want to be true, even if the evidence goes against those beliefs. (2) The very best answer to this dilemma then, if not the only one, is to examine the evidence to ascertain which options are true and which ones are not! Someone has to be right! So let’s study the data and see where it leads. That is precisely what we are doing in our study here. So, unless we want to settle for circularly affirming our own desires and feelings, going with the evidence remains the route to take.

29 Davis, Risen Indeed, 172.

30 Besides Lewontin, Nagel, and Davis above, other instances include Wright, “In Grateful Dialogue,” 248; Wright, People of God, 109–18, 123; Dale C. Allison Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 350. Graham Twelftree states it in a slightly different way: “What we take to be historically possible or probable is affected—perhaps even determined—by the culture in which our minds have been shaped.” See Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 1999), 305.

31 Moses Hadas, “Introduction,” in The Complete Works of Tacitus, ed. Moses Hadas, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Random House, 1942), ix–xix.

32 Hadas, ix.

33 Hadas, xvii–xviii.

34 Grant, Jesus, 183–89.

35 Hadas, “Introduction,” xvii–xviii; cf. Grant, who agrees on similar grounds in Jesus, 182, 199–204.

36 Wand, Christianity, 51–52.

37 David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 63.

38 Wand, Christianity, 25–27, 51–52, 156.

39 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 11–13, 210.

40 For a very positive overview done during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries regarding the actual use of scholarly probability studies in computing the likelihoods of historical events, see Rick Kennedy, A History of Reasonableness: Testimony and Authority in the Art of Thinking (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2004), 128, 146–67. Cf. also Michael Grant, Jesus, 201; Paul L. Maier, “The Empty Tomb as History,” Christianity Today, March 28, 1975, 4–6; C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 16; Walsh, Philosophy of History, 19; Gilderhus, History and Historians, 118.

41 Gerd Lüdemann with Alf Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 6.

42 A. J. M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 97.

43 John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 129.

44 Pannenberg, Jesus, 99; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:361; Jürgen Moltmann, “The Resurrection of Christ: Hope for the World,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 78; N. T. Wright, “Early Traditions and the Origin of Christianity,” Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 138; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 280–81; Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection Revisited,” review of The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, Gregorianum 79 (1998): 169–72; Craig Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 25, 28, 30; Grant R. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 294.

45 James D. G. Dunn, “Response to Darrell L. Bock,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 299.

46 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 101.

47 Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161.

48 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 317.

49 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 340.

50 Dunn, “Response to Darrell L. Bock,” 299.

51 We are definitely not speaking here of our conclusions somehow being apodictically certain in some near-absolute sense. Inductive studies of various sorts are simply incapable of yielding the same results as what can be achieved by certain types of mathematical theorems or deductive logic. But this is like saying that induction and deduction are different things. For a few additional considerations, see Gary R. Habermas, “Probability Calculus, Proof and Christian Apologetics,” Simon Greenleaf Review of Law and Religion 8 (1988–1989): 5.

52 A more complete treatment of many of these issues can be found in Earle E. Cairns, God and Man in Time (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 11–29.

53 An early, edited version of the next two to three pages first appeared in Gary R. Habermas, “Philosophy of History, Historical Relativism and History as Evidence,” in Evangelical Apologetics: Selected Essays from the 1995 Evangelical Theological Society Convention, ed. Michael Bauman, David Hall, and Robert Newman (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1996), primarily 100–103.

54 The latter phrase is Breisach’s translation in Historiography, 233.

55 Wilhelm Dilthey, “The Understanding of Other Persons and Their Life Experiences,” in Theories of History, ed. Patrick Gardiner (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 220–22 in particular.

56 One of the most intriguing and informative discussions of many of these issues is R. G. Collingwood’s The Idea of History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 231–82. Several excellent anthologies provide one of the handiest and best ways to gain an overview of this debate. For example, contributions by Dilthey (“The Dream,” 37–43), Croce (“History and Chronicle,” 44–57), and Collingwood (“The Historical Imagination,” 66–84) are all included in Meyerhoff, Philosophy of History. Those by Dilthey (listed in the previous footnote), Croce (“Historical Determinism and the ‘Philosophy of History,’” 233–41), and Collingwood (“History as Re-enactment of Past Experience,” 251–62) are all found in Gardiner, Theories of History.

57 See Robin Collingwood’s critique of Croce, “Croce’s Philosophy of History,” in Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of History, ed. William Debbins (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), chap. 1. One of Collingwood’s major critiques, made at several points, was that Croce’s idealism too easily turns into naturalism (esp. 9, 12–14). In fact, Collingwood concluded that Croce’s worst error was not purging his philosophy of its naturalism, a position which Collingwood calls “a kind of philosophical suicide” (21–22). However, Kennedy judged that, in at least some aspects of the overall discussion, Collingwood himself still went further than his peers. See Kennedy, History of Reasonableness, 232–33.

58 Collingwood, “History as Re-enactment,” 253. Further comments by Collingwood continue to confirm this emphasis: “If we raise the question, Of what can there be historical knowledge? The answer is, Of that which can be re-enacted in the historian’s mind” (257). In another statement: “Of everything other than thought, there can be no history” (258). We will not be able to discuss at this point the further aspects of idealistic historiography. But a critical evaluation of Collingwood’s “absurd” view is contained in Harvard University philosopher Morton White’s Foundations of Historical Knowledge (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 147–51.

59 Especially the more radical and thoroughgoing versions of positivism had fairly brief tenures, as many philosophical movements go. Even A. J. Ayer’s introductory comments in the second edition of his seminal volume Language, Truth, and Logic (New York: Dover, 1936) indicate some of the major critiques with which he was already being confronted just ten years after the original publication in 1936. At any rate, the term realism is perhaps the preferred contrast here anyway, especially since realism and idealism are often juxtaposed anyway.

60 Breisach, Historiography, 331.

61 Carl L. Becker, “What Are Historical Facts?,” Western Political Quarterly 8 (1955): 330.

62 Charles Beard, “Written History as an Act of Faith,” American Historical Review 39 (1934): 228–29.

63 Evans, In Defense of History, 31.

64 Gilderhus, History and Historians, 82.

65 Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), esp. 396, 402–5, 410.

66 For the latter portion of the give-and-take involved in this dialogue, see especially the essays by Carl Becker (“What Are Historical Facts?,” 120–37), Charles Beard (“Written History as an Act of Faith,” 140–51), Morton White (“Can History Be Objective?,” 188–202), Ernest Nagel (“The Logic of Historical Analysis,” 203–15), and W. H. Walsh (“Can History Be Objective?,” 215–24), each in Meyerhoff, Philosophy of History. See also the selections by Walsh (“‘Meaning’ in History,” 295–307), White (“Historical Explanation,” 356–73), Isaiah Berlin (“Determinism, Relativism, and Historical Judgments,” 319–29), Christopher Blake (“Can History Be Objective?,” 329–43), and William Dray (“‘Explaining What’ in History,” 402–8), each in Gardiner, Theories of History. Compare in particular the contributions by Walsh (“The Limits of Scientific History,” 54–74) and J. A. Passmore (“The Objectivity of History,” 75–94), both in Dray, Philosophical Analysis and History.

67 Novick, That Noble Dream, 406.

68 The many examples include Dilthey, “Understanding of Other Persons,” 224–25; Croce, “History and Chronicle,” 228–30; Collingwood, Idea of History, 134–51, 246–82, 252–302; also Collingwood, “The Limits of Historical Knowledge,” in his Essays in the Philosophy of History, chap. 6; Beard, “Written History,” 141, 147–51; cf. also Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (New York: Macmillan, 1935); Becker, “What Are Historical Facts?,” 121–36. Becker’s influential volume The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1932), 17–39, 83–84, 163–68, is essentially a historical argument that contrasts trends in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries (31). Gardiner said of Karl Mannheim that he may have been “the most forthright proponent of historical relativism in recent times,” and yet Mannheim was careful to clarify that factual questions were not being denigrated per se, but that they needed to be viewed as coming from particular perspectives; see Mannheim, “Sociology of Knowledge,” in Gardiner, Theories of History, 247–49.

An intriguing contrast is that, besides the type of skepticism that can be found in some of the idealistic historians themselves, a different species of very skeptical-leaning theories came from naturalistically inclined philosophers who opposed the supernatural realm and its miraculous events. Perhaps strangely enough, these scholars also generally acknowledged the benefits of good historical research. David Hume was probably best known in his own lifetime as a historian rather than a philosopher, as indicated by his best-selling, multivolumed work The History of England (London: Gilbert and Revington, 1848), published between 1754 and 1762. This study reached back almost two millennia to the conquest of Julius Caesar. Hume’s skeptical philosophical text An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) also defended the knowledge of historical events even from ancient times (as in sec. 5, pt. 1). Bertrand Russell was also a student of history whose interests are indicated in several works: for example, “Dialectical Materialism,” in Gardiner, Theories of History, 286–92; and “Truth and Falsehood” and “Knowledge, Error, and Probable Opinion” in Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912). Other examples can be found in A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (New York: Dover, 1946), 16, 18–19, 40, 101; Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Pantheon, 1972), 149–65, 195. Additional passages of interest are found in J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), esp. 23–28; Flew, God and Philosophy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 146, 150–58; Flew in Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, ed. Terry L. Miethe (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 5–8; Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 185–87, 213.

69 Becker, “What Are Historical Facts?,” 123.

70 Becker, 123.

71 One oddity that is often overlooked in such a discussion is that even the common identifications for these very broad groups—the positivists or objectivists on one side versus the idealists or relativists on the other—had also taken a hit. The movement known as philosophical positivism in the broader sense had already been abandoned by this time, so that name would only rarely be used. But objectivist still sounded too close to something like “proof” in that it placed too much emphasis on being totally certain of one’s conclusions. On the other hand, as just mentioned, the term relativists had the sound of denying much well-researched historical truth.

2

Historiography: The Tools and Rules of the Discipline

As argued in the foregoing chapter, scholars of differing schools of thought, including even more skeptical researchers, generally agree that historians have the means at their disposal to investigate events in the past. There are of course differences over questions pertaining to how much history can be established as having actually occurred. Since some allow the possibility of discovering more facts than others, we need to inquire how such conclusions are reached. But simply that professional historians as a whole most commonly recognize many of the potential methods is definitely noteworthy, especially since this conclusion reaches across the table and includes those who are realists, idealists, and postmodernists, along with other skeptics. It gives us a strong starting point.

Given that there is plenty of work to do in these areas, how would the actual spadework carry on in such research? What sort of data is needed? What are the tools that these professionals use and how do they actually employ them? And what are the rules for employing these instruments? How are appropriate conclusions determined? The historical process and how it proceeds is the chief subject in this chapter, particularly with regard to the appropriate tools and rules of the trade.

The Tools of Historical Research and Investigation

How does someone ascertain what happened in the past? What is the actual process of gathering historical data? How does one actually do the work of the historian? And how is such research accomplished?

Whether or not past events actually occurred often can be ascertained by a careful investigation of the available data. The historian can inspect the relevant data in many forms, including eyewitness testimony (like lectures, interviews, and in more recent times, video and audio interviews), tradition (both written and oral), printed or written documents (on materials such as papyri, vellum, or paper), and archaeological sources (materials from excavations, structures, instruments, weapons, coins, and other artifacts).1 It is upon such confirmation that the historian must then build her case. Tools such as these encompass the working parameters of historical research.2

When this research is completed, the existing body of data is not automatically or naively recognized as consisting of true accounts and then pronounced as such. This is especially the case where existing lines of evidence clash. So the historian must critically sift the available findings to ascertain their accuracy as closely as possible. This is done by applying the various principles of historical, literary, and other forms of criticism to the data, posing alternative explanations, and posing many questions along the way.

The bottom-line results are determined by considerations such as which conclusions best fit the evidence. This is the normal process of historiography.3 Choices are made based on the entire project as the historian makes an inference to the best explanation or chooses the most probable conclusion.

Of course, historical data must exist and be obtainable if the historian is to scrutinize the past. This information is often divided into two varieties: primary and secondary sources. Primary materials “are underived, firsthand, or contemporary with the event” and are therefore much more crucial.4 These may consist of various types of early or eyewitness testimony.

Secondary materials are still helpful as they may provide different angles on the primary sources regarding past persons and events. These may include items such as textbooks, monographs, edited volumes, and syllabi. These may help elucidate and expand upon the primary materials. However, there could be some conflicts as well.

Primary sources may comprise both literary and nonliterary remains. The literary remains include written documents of either an official or unofficial nature. Pliny the Younger’s famous correspondence, penned while he was a Roman governor in Asia Minor during the early second century AD, is an example of literature composed by a state official or representative.5 An unofficial primary document would include informal works of a firsthand nature, such as books, newspapers, journals, or periodicals. One example is Julius Caesar’s accounts of his battles in Gaul, written before his rule in first century BC Rome.6 Another is George Armstrong Custer’s series of articles that he wrote for Galaxy magazine from 1872 to 1874 that were later issued as a book.7

Documents written or coauthored by the eyewitnesses, interviews with them, or texts that otherwise still involve or reflect their influences are, of course, extremely important in historical study whenever they are available. Generally, the further we go back into the past, the rarer these sources become.8 An example of such eyewitness sources is published interviews from the 1940s and 1950s with still-living American Civil War veterans.9 Literary remains are also found in sources other than papyrus or paper, such as inscriptions found on stone, metal, or other materials (termed epigraphy).10

Primary nonliterary remains would include items such as video or audio recordings obtained directly or indirectly from eyewitness interviews, oral tradition, photographs, and archaeological artifacts. Eyewitness testimony in the form of recorded interviews obviously cannot extend very far beyond 100 years. Tradition, both oral as well as written, may date into antiquity, including sources like reports, heroic stories, legends, and ballads. At one end of the spectrum, traditions grounded in trustworthy eyewitness testimony or other early reports might be based on crucial and reliable sources. At the other end, however, legends such as the stories of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree or some of Davy Crockett’s exploits indicate clearly that not all such rumors turn out to be reliable! The weakness with these sorts of tradition is that it is unknown whether they are reliable and not simply hearsay or storytelling.11

Archaeological artifacts can be especially valuable witnesses to our past, even though they often play an auxillary role. Remains such as architecture, monuments, grave sites, burial chambers, furniture, artwork, clothes, coins, jewelry, tools, or other implements can often help determine customs, cultural background, and even historical events. Prime instances include what can be learned from Jewish burial chambers, including very specific data concerning burial customs, the physical characteristics of the persons of that time, as well as the varieties of death they suffered.

One enormous archaeological example is the Shroud of Turin. As long as it is an actual archaeological artifact rather than a fake, which seems quite assured in light of the most recent scientific research, it can tell us dozens of things about the physical process of death by Roman crucifixion. This is the case whether or not it ever belonged to Jesus. Of course, if it was actually Jesus’s burial garment, then it is probably the most valuable object on the entire earth.

Another archaeological find of colossal proportions is the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in excavations of the environs of the Qumran community near the Dead Sea in 1947. In addition to the scrolls themselves, which of course were the biggest prize of this discovery, numerous other facts emerged from about the time of Jesus regarding the ascetic and communal lifestyle of the sectarian Essenes. Excavations in Greek cities such as Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus have also provided invaluable evidence concerning the art, religious beliefs, and lifestyle of these ancient cultures.

Gathering primary and secondary sources does not complete the historical study. Once again, the historian cannot automatically conclude that the collection of data is synonymous with having discovered the data itself. Rather, these sources also must be organized and subjected to various kinds of criticism before conclusions can be drawn.12 In the case of written documents, both external and internal historical and literary criticism, in particular, is implemented regarding the texts.

External criticism is applied for the purpose of examining the writing itself and is composed of two types. Higher criticism assesses the authenticity of the document regarding features like its authorship, date and place of composition, context, audience, and motives for writing. It also asks whether the textual claims are trustworthy and whether a text contains solid indications of corresponding to what we know about the subject from other sources.

Lower criticism concerns the question of the extent to which we essentially have the text as it was originally composed. Lower criticism asks: Do we know what the original author wrote? It chiefly involves questions of manuscript evidence: the dates of our existing copies, their comparison to the originals (which we do not possess) as well as their relation to each other, and the presence of any documentary interpolations or omissions.

Both external and internal factors help in assessing a document’s overall reliability. This includes determining the accuracy, character, and competence of the author as well as his ability to separate the facts from his feelings, opinions, or other subjective distortions.

For unwritten sources, such as oral traditions, sermons, or hymnic materials, criticism can take such forms as ascertaining as closely as possible the original date and stages of composition, the source of the material, its accuracy, and so on. The testing of eyewitness interviews may follow lines of criticism closer to those used for documentary sources, complete with external and internal phases, including the identity and reputation of the source, the date of the testimony, its credibility and accuracy, and whether it has been modified by time or circumstances. In the case of archaeological artifacts, the use of dating methods, other scientific procedures such as chemical analyses or nondestructive testing, and comparisons to relevant written accounts can be exceptionally helpful.

After the historian collects her materials, organizes them, and applies both external and internal criticism, she is well on her way in the process of preparing and formulating her conclusions. The results should include all the known data and provide the most comprehensive and likely judgment possible on the issues. Presenting the data might come in the form of journal articles, books, or papers presented at professional conferences. The outcome is then open to careful peer review and scrutiny from other scholars, which should prompt the cautious historian to be able to defend the results based on the factual data available.13

In sum, the historical tools are the materials with which the historian must work to accomplish her goals regarding the sifting of past remains so as to present the most likely scenarios. Whether eyewitness reports, traditions of various sorts, written or printed records, or archaeological artifacts, these sources of information are exceptionally vital data upon which sometimes crucial decisions are rendered.

Historical Rules: Applying the Tools

Now the question concerns how to actually apply these tools in such a manner so as to discover the likelihood of locating historical facts. Historians take different paths on moving from the tools to the rules. Of those we could discuss, we will concentrate primarily on the “critical criteria” that historians, New Testament specialists, as well as other scholars apply to the texts which they are studying.14

We have pointed out that more conservative scholars will often gravitate to the more traditional paths that indicate that the New Testament texts are reliable. Undoubtedly, many worthwhile insights emerge from these data. Textual attestation of various sorts brings us very close to the original writing, while authorship, extrabiblical sources, and various types of historical confirmation all contribute to the accuracy of the reports.

On the other hand, critical scholars tend to approach the biblical writings from other angles. While they often recognize the value of a number of these traditional insights, recent scholars tend not to be so interested in the overall reliability of the New Testament texts. Their work is based largely on the twin assumptions that the various writings differ in historical value and that, even within each composition, there is a mixture of worthwhile and questionable material.15 Eschewing considerations in favor of the trustworthiness of the entire corpus, then, they concentrate on individual authors, such as Paul, and specific passages.

We might liken this latter critical technique to that of the bricklayer who builds a wall from the ground up, piece by piece, utilizing each unit individually. The entire effort, however, remains one of arranging the separate bricks into a coherent whole, each working together, contributing to the new picture that emerges.

Two Historical Research Methods

Two commonly mentioned methods in historical investigation (and in other research subjects too) that frequently overlap are induction and abduction (with the latter also being called “inference to the best explanation”). After gathering the relevant material, both of these avenues utilize research data and attempt to discern, respectively, the most likely or the best explanation for what is known. Each potential hypothesis is investigated for its ability to decipher these data most capably.

The inductive approaches sometimes employ probabilities, like those in Bayes’ Theorem calculations. Abduction applies conditions such as explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, and conformity to other beliefs. A number of these and similar applications are implicit throughout the investigation that follows in these volumes, beginning with the next section, below, on the historical criteria applied to the New Testament and elsewhere. Many items within these parameters have special applications to the minimal facts argument.

The strategies preferred by critical scholars have actually produced many exciting gems to explore and excavate. Though often independent from the more traditional devices, these treasures can add additional strength to the historical picture of Jesus. Some of these assets are powerful tools that can be utilized in more than one way. For instance, they can add more specific components to the general techniques preferred by many conservatives. For more skeptical researchers who employ only the individual facts (i.e., the bricks) method, this is the only way to proceed.

Several of these critical strategies will be explored throughout our study of the death and resurrection of Jesus. In this chapter we will pursue a little further an avenue that contributes very nicely to our gaining new knowledge of the individual items.16 The textual criteria of authenticity are the rules that support the likelihood of particular sayings or events in history, in this case, from the life of Jesus. The results are not all of the same level of assurance, in that some are more or less probable than others.17

It should also be cautioned that these criteria need to be viewed more as individual epistemic indicators in the sense of providing certain reasons for the probability of particular candidates for historicity. They do not indicate that other less-endowed items are therefore unhistorical. Rather, the others without such backup actually could be historical as well, even though they are not accompanied by these specific reasons for judging this to be the case.18 Thus, these more rigorous tests may be applied especially in the case where more critical details are needed or desired. This illustrates how the criteria of authenticity can come to the aid of either methodology—the general or the specific methods.

Recent critical scholars tend to apply various analytical principles to the New Testament text to ascertain which individual portions have the highest likelihood of providing legitimate historical insights. Implementing these standards can isolate portions or texts, providing the separate insights.

These methods, as applied by contemporary biblical scholars, were actually borrowed from the approaches employed regularly by secular historians. But seldom does one find a complete listing of these principles anywhere, perhaps due at least partially to personal preferences, as each scholar naturally favors some of these criteria over others. We will provide here a brief inventory of a number of these criteria of authenticity that are regularly applied to the Gospel material as well as a few critical comments along the way. Examples of the rules from both secular and biblical scholars should help in identifying the principle as well as some of its benefits.

Enumerating the Criteria of Authenticity

Although not usually listed among the authenticity criteria per se, we will begin this list with two crucially important principles, perhaps even the most essential tools of all in terms of historiography. These are well recognized by historians both in ancient as well as in modern times.

(1) In general, early sources and other evidences are strongly preferred over later data. While greater intervening differences are allowed, especially in ancient history, even the difference of a decade or two can be decisive. Of course, earlier sources can always be mistaken too, for several reasons. But we are dealing with probabilities here, so all things considered, we are usually far better off with the earlier reports.

With application to the historical Jesus, any material between AD 30 and 50 would be regarded as being especially exemplary, a time period highly preferred by all scholars as pointed out, for example, in the principles followed by the Jesus Seminar.19 Reports from such an early time frame would actually predate the written form of the four canonical Gospels, or any other such writings for that matter. A celebrated instance is the early pre-Pauline list of Jesus’s resurrection appearances that the apostle Paul delivers to his readers in 1 Cor 15:3–8. The consensus critical position is that Paul very probably received at least the material on which this early tradition is based, and more likely the creed itself, in the early to mid-30s.20

Other exceptionally early examples include the brief sermon summaries that many scholars think are embedded within the Book of Acts and may date to AD 30–40,21 as well as other ancient creedal traditions found in the New Testament Epistles.22 The Q material found in the first and third Gospels, along with Synoptic sources favored by many scholars, such as the pre-Markan Passion Narrative, are also deemed to date perhaps from AD 50–60 as well.23 Further, Paul’s earliest “authentic” epistles date no later than the 50s.24

(2) Whenever these early sources are derived from the eyewitnesses themselves who actually participated in some of the events, or where the formation of the sources was at least guided by eyewitness testimony, this probably provides the strongest evidence possible. Like early testimony, we know that eyewitness reports can also be mistaken.25 But for that reason alone, we would hardly trade eyewitnesses for others who reported what they heard secondhand! Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs these data “the rule of immediacy” and terms them “the best relevant evidence.”26 When scholars have ancient sources that are both very early and based on eyewitness testimony, they have a combination that is very difficult to dismiss.27

One reason critical scholars take Paul’s testimony so seriously is that his writings provide both early as well as eyewitness testimony to what he believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Further, Paul was a scholar trained in the Jewish law and knew other apostles, such as Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus (see Gal 1:18–2:10). He was in the right place, at the right time, discussing the truth of the central message in Christianity: the gospel. This is even conceded by atheist philosopher Michael Martin as well as other critical scholars.28

(3) Multiple attestation of a report derived from more than one independent source is another chief indication that a particular claim certainly may be factual.29 As historian of antiquity Paul Maier attests, “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”30 Even the Jesus Seminar emphasizes items that are “attested in two or more independent sources.”31

Several significant instances may be mentioned just briefly here. Of the five independent sources often recognized in the Gospel accounts—Mark, the Q sayings, the material unique to Matthew (M), the material unique to Luke (L), and John—Jesus’s miracles are reported in all five layers, with some specific miracle claims being included in more than one of the sources.32 Jesus’s crucial “Son of Man” statements are also confirmed in all five Gospel sources.33 On the other hand, the story of the empty tomb is reported in at least three, if not four, of the Gospel sources.34 Indications such as these help us to understand why these significant teachings and events reported in Jesus’s life are taken so seriously by contemporary critical scholars.

(4) A rather skeptical criterion of authenticity is termed dissimilarity, discontinuity, or even double dissimilarity. It has long been utilized as a very popular tool for determining the historicity of some of Jesus’s teachings and actions. The central idea is that a particular saying may be attributed to someone only if it cannot plausibly be accounted for as also being the words or teachings of other roughly contemporary sources. In the case of Jesus, it must be determined if the teachings that have been attributed to him in the Gospels could plausibly have been derived from either prior Jewish thought or from early church exhortations. The latter might indicate that sayings of Jesus were possibly constructed anew to settle an early theological dispute or political or ethical issue, expand a teaching, or relate extraordinary events which would increase Jesus’s stature. Accordingly, historian of antiquity Michael Grant refers to this test as “our principal valid method of research.”35

It has already been mentioned above that Jesus’s “Son of Man” sayings are multiply attested in all five Gospel sources. In a well-known application of the principle of dissimilarity, it can also be shown that this terminology is unaccounted for by either Jewish or early Christian teachings. This is a powerful one-two punch! At least some Jews did have a “Son of Man” concept in writings dating from about this same time.36 But, of course, these non-Christian Jewish sources would hardly have applied this appellation to Jesus. And while “Son of Man” is Jesus’s favorite self-designation in the Synoptic Gospels, very surprisingly it is not used to refer to Jesus in any of the New Testament Epistles even a single time!37 For whatever reasons, then, this certainly seems like a clear indication that the early church was already addressing Jesus in other ways. So the regular conclusion is that, in all likelihood, Jesus probably used this designation for himself.38

The criterion of dissimilarity has frequently received its share of criticism over the years. A common complaint is that it presents a rather sterile Jesus since, although rather anachronistically, it presents a Jewish-Christian teacher who, as it were, cannot truly be recognized as either Jewish or “Christian.” In other words, it is far too strict and skeptical of a standard. From another angle, how strong would our research be if, in studying the teachings and actions of almost any historical person, we were not allowed to count anything that was attributed to them until we first subtracted all the comments that someone else from their religion, culture, family, and closest group of contacts could have taught? Furthermore, what great religious teacher did not build and expand upon the ideas, customs, teachings, and actions of his or her time, with it still being his or her own adaptations? If this criterion is applied too rigorously, such teachers could hardly be seen and studied as persons of their own generation.

However, it could be countered that this response misses the mark. The purpose of this criterion is actually epistemic in nature. It does not aim to separate Jesus or anyone else from his culture and surroundings. It does not maintain that Jesus’s teachings and actions had nothing in common with either his fellow Jews or with his followers that would later be called Christians. Rather, it asserts simply that these more unique and singular elements are the ones of which we can be the most assured that they are indeed Jesus’s own teachings and actions. Again, the criterion is not meant to present an exhaustive account of all that Jesus both said and did, but rather to single out those distinctives which we can know reasonably well were his.

(5) Particularly applicable to the historical Jesus, another criterion often applied to Gospel studies is the presence of Aramaic words, substrata, environment, or other indications of a Palestinian origin. Since it is generally agreed that Jesus spoke Aramaic, when these linguistic conditions appear in the Gospels, we stand a good chance of looking through a window into the actual teachings of Jesus. Additionally, it is perhaps no coincidence that these Aramaic terms often break into the Gospel text at some of the most crucial and incredible places—such as Jesus raising a girl from the dead (Mark 5:41), in Jesus’s healing ministry (Mark 10:46, 51), or with regard to major teachings as with Jesus referring to God as “Abba” (Mark 14:36). As a result, some conclude that these occasions mark places where the author or the church itself would most probably have wanted to preserve the exactness of the occasion, and would actually give us the best chance of viewing the ipsissima verba of Jesus himself during these moments.

One major study from German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias’s well-known and highly influential research explores whether Jesus actually utilized the Aramaic word Abba as a reference to God (Mark 14:36).39 While Jeremias’s conclusions have been qualified somewhat, most of the force still remains, and we have an instance here where Jesus probably employed a very unusual term that was very rarely if ever applied to God in Jewish usage.40 As such, this word would best be understood as a familiar, personal, and even intimate reference of Jesus toward his Father.

Sometimes researchers consider the criteria of authenticity in terms of major and minor benchmarks. There remains much general agreement regarding the chief yardsticks just mentioned above, but there can be fairly wide amounts of divergence.41 Scholars do not always reach the same conclusions regarding how far to promote the remaining criteria; some think they deserve equal billing, while others demote them a bit. Still, historical details from Jesus’s life can be enhanced by these additional considerations as well.

(6) The principle of embarrassment, negative report, or surprise is indicated by the presence of disparaging or very surprising remarks made by the author about himself or herself, another individual, or an event toward which the author is friendly or has a vested interest.42 The point is that, in normal circumstances, most people would need a sufficient reason to give a very negative report concerning things they deem to be valuable or about someone whom they love dearly. This would appear to be the case especially in examples that present someone in a negative light, especially when the main purpose of the writing is to instruct the readers in holy and proper living.

Many instances of the principle of embarrassment are presented in the pages of the Gospels. Few are harder hitting than the strong unbelief of James, Jesus’s own brother, and the rest of Jesus’s family. Before the crucifixion, they thought that Jesus was mentally unbalanced (Mark 3:20–25; John 7:5). This report (especially Mark 3:21) begs for an adequate cause for exposing these reports regarding the apostle James, known as a pious leader in the early church. This is why the majority of recent critical scholars believe these are authentic reports.43

Another striking example is Jesus’s statement in Mark 13:32. In the very same context where he indicates that he is the Son of the Father, he goes on to declare that he does not even know the time of his coming. Would not the Son of God know something about the future, and why say this in the same context of an important theological point when the comment raises so many questions? To further drive home this last point, British theologian Donald Guthrie declares what many are thinking when he states that this comment about Jesus is simply too embarrassing to have been invented, hence its authenticity should not be questioned.44

Perhaps the best known of these embarrassing contexts is the report found in all four Gospels that women were the first ones to discover that Jesus’s burial tomb was empty. It was uncustomary in antiquity for women to testify in a law court, especially concerning crucial matters. This indicates that the desire of the early church to tell the truth outweighed the temptation to put their best evidential foot forward.45

Lastly, the repeated statements of unbelief and other negative reactions reported about the disciples, both when Jesus predicted his impending resurrection before it occurred,46 as well as after Jesus had risen from the dead,47 are further indications that they actually did react in this manner. Otherwise, what would have been a more compelling reason as to why the disciples, who were leaders of the early church by the time of these writings, would be willingly placed in such a negative light?48

(7) The criterion of enemy attestation is satisfied when an antagonistic source expresses agreement concerning a person or event when it is contrary to their best interests. An example of a strong commendation is given by historian Paul Maier: “Such positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind of evidence . . . if Cicero, who despised Catiline, admitted that the fellow had one good quality—courage—among a host of bad ones then the historian correctly concludes that Catiline was at least courageous.”49

In the case of Jesus’s miracles, a strong example of enemy attestation is provided by the repeated Gospel testimony that those who opposed Jesus’s supernatural healings either witnessed these acts and failed to challenge them (Mark 3:1–6) or attributed them to Satan (Mark 3:22–27). In the process, they thereby acknowledged the authors’ view that these events had actually occurred. Marcus Borg points out that this is one of the reasons that makes it “virtually indisputable” that Jesus healed and exorcised demons.50 In a last example, the Jewish priests reportedly paid the guards at Jesus’s tomb to have them report that the disciples stole Jesus’s body (Matt 28:11–15), once again agreeing that Jesus’s tomb had been discovered empty.

(8) Coherence is a less specific criterion. If a purported event or teaching fits well with another account that already has one or more reasons in favor of accepting its historicity, then this raises the odds that the initial occurrence or teaching is also historical.51 The proposed event or saying may even do more by illuminating the other known incidents and rendering them more intelligible.52

For John Meier, coherence is one of the very best indicators of the content and truth of Jesus’s teachings. As an example, Meier thinks that Jesus’s teaching in Mark 12:18–27 regarding the resurrection of the dead conforms well to the Q saying of Jesus on the same subject of the afterlife in Matt 8:11–12//Luke 13:28–29 as well as with other teachings of Jesus.53 Meier concludes that another instance, the Gospel teaching that Jesus’s family had rejected him, agrees well with Jesus’s repeated teaching that believers will be called to leave their own families for his sake and that of his kingdom (e.g., Mark 10:29–31).54

Of all the criteria of authenticity, it has always seemed to me that coherence is probably the single weakest one, Meier’s commendations aside.55 Assume that we have two sayings, the first of which is evidenced and the second basically un-accompanied by specific, individual reasons for confirmation. It could be the case that they are similarly enough structured in theme, language, and actual content that we might be tempted to think there is sufficient warrant for concluding that they are separate, genuine teachings. Of course, that could be a correct conclusion. But some critical scholars would also no doubt charge that the author may simply have repeated a similar refrain, or even invented the second saying outright, depending on other characteristics.

Periodically throughout this treatment, we have noted that some criteria, such as discontinuity, are epistemically motivated. That is, it concentrates not on the question of what could be authentic, but rather how we know that such and such is in fact the case. It seems here that it is in this sense that coherence is epistemically challenged. If warrant can be found for the second saying, so be it; then coherence is almost superfluous. But what we have here is the classic issue with any sort of coherence claims. The two texts are indeed similar and cohere nicely with one another. But hanging together well does not necessarily establish the second saying as justified in itself. Perhaps the solution is to employ the suggestion by Dale Allison and simply conclude that the second saying or event is best deemed as “possibly authentic.”56 Perhaps that is enough to count it accordingly among the potential sayings in our list, since our overall effort is probabilistic anyway.

Critical criteria such as those that we have discussed above are very helpful in establishing the likely historicity of separate Gospel accounts. These principles certainly have their place. Viewing texts from these evidenced angles helps us to realize that many of Jesus’s stories and sayings are historically grounded. We will add the minimal facts component of the argument in later chapters when we deal with the specific historical data of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Conclusion

The previous chapter discussed more theoretical surveys of the philosophy of history before moving here to implementing the historical method. We have been chiefly interested in whether we could know that particular events have occurred in the past. The next chapter will address a skeptical rejoinder that challenges these views.

In this chapter we outlined a more practical approach: if historical facts are knowable and recognizable within the proper parameters, how might they best be uncovered? To that end, the “rules and tools” at the historian’s disposal were discussed as they attempt to move from the available primary and secondary sources to uncover what is most likely the accurate knowledge of past history. Most scholars agree with this conclusion, which Cairns summarizes as follows: “Through scientific study of his artifacts and documents, the historian can be reasonably certain concerning an event. There is a surprising amount of consensus among historians on the basic facts and on many conclusions about the past.”57 It is within the pursuit of these goals that we will seek to address the historicity of Jesus, particularly regarding the last days of his life, and to ascertain the best data surrounding his death and resurrection.

Notes

1 There is comparatively little disagreement among historians regarding the nature and usefulness of what we have termed the “tools” of research, regardless of their outlooks on the nature of historiography. Realists and moderates of various stripes are clear about similar lists of tools and their leading to historical conclusions: see C. Behan McCullagh, The Truth of History (New York: Routledge, 1998), esp. chaps. 1, 3; Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, 62–63 in particular (see chap. 1, n. 37); Walsh, Philosophy of History, 17–18 (see chap. 1, n. 21); Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 216–17, 250–54 (see chap. 1, n. 15); Tosh, Pursuit of History, esp. chap. 3 (see chap. 1, n. 24); Gilderhus, History and Historians, 116 (see chap. 1, n. 6); Cairns, God and Man in Time, 34–41 (see chap. 1, n. 52). Even skeptical historians recognize the value of such tools: Croce, “History and Chronicle,” 226–30 (see chap. 1, n. 56); Collingwood, Idea of History, 246–47, 257 (see chap. 1, n. 56); Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, 149–65, 195 (see chap. 1, n. 68); N. T. Wright, History and Eschatology: Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019), 81–83, 96.

2 Walsh, Philosophy of History, 18. One fascinating as well as illuminating instance from the field of military history of how such investigations may be conducted can be found in Delbrück’s methods of determining how ancient battles may have been fought during the Greek and Roman empires. By examining the available historical data, Delbrück successfully obtained information that allowed him to estimate the size of the opposing armies, how they may actually have maneuvered on the battle fields, and other facets regarding these ancient battles. An example of this research is contained in the volume coedited by Edward M. Earle, Gordon A. Craig, and Felix Gilbert, Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943). See esp. 264–68 for Delbrück’s historical techniques.

3 Walsh, Philosophy of History, 18–19.

4 Cairns, God and Man in Time, 34. For further details regarding our discussion below, compare also pages 33–42, though we will diverge from Cairns at various points.

5 Gaius Plinius Caecilius, Letters, trans. William Melmouth, rev. by F. C. T. Bosanquet, Harvard Classics, ed. Charles L. Eliot, part 2 of vol. 9 (New York: P. F. Collier and Son, 1909).

6 Julius Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul, trans. S. A. Handford, Penguin Classics, ed. E. V. Rieu (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin, 1951).

7 George Armstrong Custer, My Life on the Plains, ed. Milo Milton Quaife (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1952, 1966).

8 Even so, for the ancients, eyewitness testimony was also valued significantly. See Breisach, Historiography, 38 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

9 See the fascinating accounts included in Otto Eisenschiml and Ralph Newman, Eyewitness: The Civil War as We Lived It (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1956).

10 For example, the so-called Nazareth Decree is a Greek inscription on a marble block discovered in the city of Nazareth that warns against the destruction or robbing of graves or tombs. For the text, see Paul L. Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 119–20.

11 Regarding Davy Crockett, both reliable and unreliable details may be found in the same source. For details, see Davy Crockett’s autobiography, A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett of the State of Tennessee, intro. Paul Andrew Hutton (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987). For some of the “tall tales” concerning the exploits of Davy Crockett, see Hutton’s examples on xxxvii–xxxix, xliii–xliv. An amazing example of how contemporary historical research can sometimes set straight the original sources themselves can be found in Hutton’s corrections on xi–xii.

12 For details of Cairns’s treatment here, see God and Man in Time, chap. 2.

13 Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2010), 54–56.

14 Since this volume is not primarily concerned with overviews of the philosophy of history and historiography per se, we will limit our treatment of the “rules” to this chief approach. But it should be noted that in the chapters below, along with these criteria, we will also be pursuing the “minimal facts method,” making use of the best-evidenced data to argue the case for the death and resurrection of Jesus. That these factual considerations are accepted virtually unanimously by scholars in relevant fields of study provides some common ground for discussion.

15 Dale Allison provides such a distinction when he writes, “Although the gospels contain mythical elements, they are not on the whole mythological constructs.” See Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Criticism, History (London: Bloomsbury, 2021), 21. Bart Ehrman states concerning the Gospels, “Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources . . . not because ‘the Gospels say so.’” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 74.

16 For details concerning several of these criteria as used by scholars, in addition to outlining a few other critical approaches, see Gary R. Habermas, “Why I Believe the New Testament Is Historically Reliable,” in Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why they Believe, ed. Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), chap. 9; Habermas, “Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels,” Christian Research Journal 28 (2005).

17 Or even, as suggested by Dale Allison, perhaps we should also be more willing to employ conclusions such as this saying or event being “possibly authentic.” See Dale C. Allison Jr., “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” in How to Study the Historical Jesus, vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 30.

18 Or, if a researcher considers that a particular text is already generally reliable in the overarching sense that we have discussed, she might even conclude that while the entire document is hence trustworthy in some (perhaps even lesser) sense, more particular support exists for several of the specifics within the whole.

19 This is the first of “The Rules of Oral Evidence,” emphasized by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar in The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 25–26.

20 This topic is addressed below in detail. Cf. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 24, 128.

21 Like Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Chapman, 1983), 109.

22 Perhaps the most celebrated work on this subject is Oscar Cullmann’s Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949). See also C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980).

23 The Jesus Seminar is an instance of a group of scholars dating the Q tradition to AD 50–60. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 18, 128.

24 According to Bart D. Ehrman, Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 44.

25 For some specific details on this subject, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly chaps. 11–12 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

26 Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, 62. Fischer also treats archaeological “remains” as more primary than “direct observations.” For the importance of eyewitness reporting in ancient Greek writing, once again, see Breisach, Historiography, 38–39. For the importance of accuracy in ancient historians, see also Breisach’s comments on Cicero (57–58), Livy (64), Tacitus (67), and Lucian (72–73); cf. 75–76 more generally. For a number of concerns by one of the only ancient historians to address metahistorical issues, see Lucian of Samosata, How to Write History, in Lucian: Volume IV, trans. K. Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), including Lucian’s own emphasis on accuracy (9–11, 73), along with the importance of proper perspective and lack of exaggeration or embellishment (7–15, 39–41, 71). Lucian derides the author who wrote as if he had witnessed everything personally about which he had written, including faraway places, though he had not even ventured outside of his own town (43–45)! Lucian also provides the account of Aristobulus, who sought to flatter Alexander the Great “by ascribing falsely to him certain deeds of valor and inventing achievements too great to be true.” An example included Alexander “killing elephants with one throw of the javelin.” Alexander responded by throwing the book into the River Hydaspes on which they were sailing and remarking that he ought to do the same thing to Aristobulus himself (19)! Similar examples from other ancient historians include Thucydides’s assertions about being very careful to record data accurately (book 1.1), such as correcting Herodotus’s details without mentioning him by name (11–13; cf. xxi) and entertaining divergent opinion (book 2.5). See Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, trans. Benjamin Jowett, ed. Hugh R. Trevor-Roper, rev. ed. (New York: Washington Square, 1963). Tacitus also encouraged historians to be neither bitter nor prejudiced in reporting the facts. See his Annals 1.1 in Church and Brodribb, Complete Works of Tacitus (see chap. 1, n. 31). Translator Robert Graves notes that Suetonius received a respectful amount of his historical material from eyewitnesses and checked the reported facts whenever possible without bias; see Graves, “Foreword” to Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957), 7.

27 Richard Bauckham’s volume Jesus and the Eyewitnesses may well be the most noteworthy. Also very influential is James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (see chap. 1, n. 3). Though older, John A. T. Robinson’s text, Can We Trust the New Testament? (see chap. 1, n. 43), likewise provides helpful considerations. Any instances of eyewitness testimony located in the Gospel accounts would potentially contribute additional data not usually counted on in recent discussions.

28 Michael Martin, The Case against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993), 81.

29 Some scholars have additionally proposed multiple attestation of literary forms or patterns as an additional criterion as well, with the idea that various types of genre (e.g., didactic passages, parables, miracle accounts, liturgical texts) probably emerge from different perspectives.

30 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

31 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 26.

32 Marcus Borg acknowledges that the Gospel attestation of Jesus’s miracles is “widespread” in “our earliest sources.” Jesus: A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 61, also 59–60. Many specifics and carefully detailed textual arguments can be located in the work of two separate volumes containing almost 500 pages each, devoted to the topic of Jesus’s miracles. See John P. Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:967–70 (see chap. 1, n. 27) for his conclusions, including the multiple attestation of Jesus’s miracles. See also Graham Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30, 343–47, 358 for his conclusions (see chap. 1, n. 30) as well as his companion volume, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011). Cf. Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle and Multiple Attestation,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 23–45.

33 For some examples, see Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), 102. For many excellent details in hard-hitting though brief articles by well-credentialed New Testament scholars, see the general essays by Robert Stein (“Jesus Christ,” 629–32) and Royce Gruenler (“Son of Man,” 1127–29) in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

34 Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 23.

35 Grant, Jesus, 202 (see chap. 1, n. 24). For other scholars who have had similar high views of this criterion, see Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 39–43, particularly 39; Robert H. Stein, Gospels and Tradition: Studies on Redaction Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 171–77, esp. 176.

36 As seen in passages such as 1 Enoch 46:2; 48:2–5, 10; 52:4; 62:5–9; 69:28–29; 4 Ezra 13:3–52.

37 Outside of the Gospels, the title does appear in Acts 7:56 (with the definite article in the Greek) and in Rev 1:13 (without the definite article). However, in neither instance were the comments spoken by Jesus himself, and in both circumstances Jesus Christ is seen in heavenly, highly exalted visions. Just before Stephen’s martyrdom Jesus is seen standing at the right hand of God, an exceptionally lofty concept especially for a Jew of that time to report (see the Jewish response in Acts 7:57; Mark 14:60–64 is another example, and the Jewish leaders’ response to Jesus on that occasion is quite instructive). In Revelation, it is the exalted, heavenly Christ who stands before John. The point here is that even these two instances are not spoken by Jesus, they refer to him only in his exalted state rather than in his earthly ministry, and they are not found in any of the Epistles—all pointing to this title not being a popular or normal way to refer to Jesus at that time. Hence, these examples make it difficult to conceive of this moniker as the most popular title or name for Jesus in the early church, contrary to what we see in the Synoptic Gospels.

38 See Stein, “Jesus Christ,” 630–31, and Gruenler, “Son of Man,” 1127. John Meier spends some considerable time with another example of discontinuity when contrasting the distinctives of Jesus’s message with those of the Dead Sea community; see Marginal Jew, 3:489–532, 633–36.

39 Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), 9–30; cf. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, rev. ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972), 100–114.

40 Even Norman Perrin is much impressed with Jeremias’s research on this point and views this term as a very personal one that a Jewish child might use to refer to his father. Perrin concludes that Jesus did actually use it in reference to God. Perrin also thinks that this Aramaic word fulfills the criterion of dissimilarity. See Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 40–41.

41 For example, Perrin cites only three key criteria (Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 37–47) while Stein lists almost a dozen, with some overlap, while still remaining critical of the various applications (Gospels and Tradition, 153–87).

42 Grant, Jesus, 202–3; cf. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 23.

43 Further documentation is provided and may be found in Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 21–22.

44 See Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1981), 794n14.

45 Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 23–24.

46 Mark 8:31–33; 9:31–32; 10:32–34; 14:27–31.

47 Matt 28:17; Luke 24:36–38; John 20:19, 24–25.

48 For a single example of the many relevant comments that could be adduced here, see Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 60.

49 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 198–99.

50 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

51 An example is philosopher of history W. B. Gallie’s “Explanations in History and the Genetic Sciences,” in Theories of History, ed. Patrick Gardiner (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 397–98; Perrin pursues the idea in relation to critical New Testament research; see Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 43–45.

52 Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 111.

53 Meier, Marginal Jew, esp. 3:437–44.

54 Meier, 3:69, 72.

55 Although due to Meier’s stature, this alone might give a little pause here!

56 Allison, “Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” 30.

57 Cairns, God and Man in Time, 97.

3

Historical Postmodernism

After an initial retrenchment of a somewhat chastened objectivism among historians in the aftermath of World War II, the decades straddling the turn of the twentieth century witnessed an increasingly fragmented field of study. Scholars across various disciplines, including a number of historians, were progressively affected by a potpourri of newly emergent ideas that tended to be more diverse or radical in nature.

Novick remarks that some left-oriented thinkers in the 1960s began to pursue dissimilar interests, resulting in the discipline of history becoming rather splintered among various groups that wished to single out their own special niche in the past. Particularly, he singles out moves to explore Black American history beginning in the 1970s and women’s issues, including feminism, a little later.1

Though not immediately apparent, this fracturing of interests in the historical discipline tended to work against historians who attempted to piece together a unified body of knowledge. However, the “ideological disarray replaced the consensus on which ideas of objectivity had always depended so heavily.”2 Scholars were working at cross-purposes, and this warred against the notion of a single outlook on the past.3 Novick even goes as far as to assert that, by the 1980s, the discipline of history was fractured and “ceased to exist”! At that time, “convergence on anything, let alone a subject as highly charged as ‘the objectivity question’ was out of the question.”4

To be sure, there were many differing shades of meaning to these views. Some of these scholars were clearly still within mainline historical demarcations even while exhibiting some new types of awareness. However, others favored certain philosophical trends that favored pragmatic interests that promoted aspects of nonobjectivity. These concerns sometimes questioned the limits of knowledge, even challenging the extent to which research could produce knowable data. Some pushed even further away from the Enlightenment’s “modernist” ideals of objective data across many interdisciplinary lines. These various species of thinking have come to be generally categorized under the heading of postmodernism.

One example of this latter thinking can be found in the work of philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn’s theses and others like it, which had profound effects on the prevailing mindset. Kuhn argued that academicians usually conducted their research in such ways that fit within the parameters of their own worldviews, if not actually affirming them. Hence, data were interpreted within their familiar paradigms. Further, when changes in thinking did come about, these paradigm shifts frequently happened for reasons other than the emergence of new discoveries or facts. Rather, in spite of being unable to fully address contrary information satisfactorily, researchers typically kept holding views with which they were more comfortable. Only when the evidence was great enough to virtually overpower the older paradigm did a shift in conceptual thinking begin to occur.5

Particular historical developments within this movement emerged from more than one corridor of thought. Outgrowths or extensions of some ideas such as Kuhn’s no doubt exercised some influence here, as did those of the earlier idealistic or relativistic historical interpreters mentioned above as well as additional trends altogether.6 But many of the ideas are commonly held and appreciated by both earlier idealists and these contemporary scholars.7

Though there has been some protest and further nuance, postmodernism has become the most popular term used to describe several trends of thought involving the more or less radical questioning of objective knowledge across different disciplines.8 As applied specifically to the discipline of history, it often centers around particular themes, such as viewing historical records merely as subjective linguistic exercises unlinked to reality and not unlike fictional narratives such as storytelling. Another popular angle treats interpretations of the past as being more related to political power plays used to manipulate and control people in the present.9

As might be guessed from the foregoing, postmodernism encompasses quite a wide-ranging set of views and attitudes, sometimes including unrelated or even contradictory ideas. Nuances of various sorts often lead to huge differences of outlook and action. Following some observers, Kelly helpfully differentiates between skeptical and affirmative postmodernists. The former often embrace pessimistic and fragmented assessments of the present, including even attitudes of despair and meaninglessness. The latter often agree generally with the societal critiques, but offer a more hopeful demeanor that emphasizes making more positive choices. Other thinkers differentiate between extreme postmodernists, who propose a more radical rupture between modernity and postmodernity, and moderate postmodernists, who usually champion more nuanced and less radical solutions along with more hopeful remedies. Kelly notes that such distinctions allow for a more judicious evaluation of the weightier postmodern ideas from their less valuable critiques.10

One of the most frequent charges made by postmodernist historians against older, more objectivist views of historiography is that since we cannot actually reenact, witness, or otherwise directly observe past occurrences, this was perhaps the prime indication that we cannot “prove” what really happened before our own times. Further, the necessary “cement” holding these events together, that is, the surrounding interpretations and narratives that tell the story and fit together all the occurrences,11 is usually criticized quite heavily as another form of fictitious exercise.12

In spite of these developments, however, even these postmodern or similarly minded scholars rarely if ever deny the knowledge of historical events themselves, at least in principle. For example, E. H. Carr’s early relativistic approach still emphasizes both good research into the relevant data as well as the interpretations given to these events. They must work together, for they are linked inextricably.13 It can be observed easily in his historical works, as with perhaps even the majority of these relativistic thinkers, that Carr’s own research reveals a certain “normal” level of trust in the discipline of historiography to be able to establish the facticity of past events.14

As far as the possibility of ascertaining at least separate historical occurrences from the past, postmodernists or skeptical scholars such as French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault certainly raised questions,15 but he also made a variety of positive comments regarding the possibility of research and the securing of historical data.16 His illustrations often made use of many historical events as well.17

Hayden White even asserts that he does not mean that “past events, persons, institutions, and processes never really existed. It does not imply that we cannot have more or less precise information about these past entities.” However, rather than generating any new information about the past, historical discourse only yields interpretations. This is perhaps where the chief elements of subjectivity emerge.18 In spite of some of the positive elements here, Novick remarks that professional historians were “outraged” at White’s blurring of the lines between history and fiction.19

Even Keith Jenkins does not deny that some things from the past can be known. He asserts, “Of course, I do not in this text deny the existence of the actuality of the past.” But there is more than only one evaluation of these events and such interpretations are not true per se. Actually, “a ‘true interpretation’ is a contradiction in terms.”20 So while events are one thing, interpretations are quite another as noted above. The facts themselves do not somehow magically yield their interpretations or the narratives concerning them. From a slightly different angle, significance or meaning are not somehow inherent within historical facts.21

Jenkins’s perspectives on these subjects are enough for him to judge that at least some of the more standard, traditional historical works, such as Geoffrey Elton’s The Practice of History22 and Carr’s What Is History?, are no longer good guides for what is transpiring in current historical debates. The reason for Jenkins is, we live in the world of postmodernity whether we like it or not, whereas Elton’s and Carr’s approaches are understandably oblivious to these later and now undeniable developments. But it is simply the way things are—we have no choice in the matter!23 The result, as he states elsewhere, amounts to this: “My argument is thus a sort of ‘end of history’ argument.”24

Once again, this does not mean that Jenkins denies the reality of historical events. As he affirms, complimenting Berkhofer, “Nobody is denying, of course, that the actual past occurred.” It is simply that what happened is inextricably intertwined with the explanatory narratives surrounding the events and their interpretations. It all seems so arbitrary that we can actually give the events any meaning that we choose!25 As philosopher Jean-François Lyotard states in the same volume, “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”26

Actually, the majority of contemporary historians are presently realists, and this seems to have been the case throughout the entire growth of the critical philosophy of history movement in the nineteenth century. Most historians have rejected relativistic and postmodern historiographical approaches of various stripes and species. There is no shortage of comments affirming this either. Initially, the relativistic phase of historical interpretation that we have described above—from Dilthey through Croce, Collingwood, Beard, Becker, and a few others—only lasted approximately half a century and never really gained a lot of momentum. Moreover (as pointed out earlier and detailed further below), a synthesis emerged by the mid-twentieth century that incorporated the salient features of both objectivist and subjectivist positions while, overall, supporting a more traditional position.

Breisach notes some of these same ideas, asserting, “Progressive history’s relativist phase was brief and did not lead to a thorough epistemological debate in American historiography.” It was rarely even applied consistently.27 Dray adds in one of his more recent books on Collingwood, who was probably the most influential of the initial round of these relativistic historians, that, except for W. H. Walsh, there was a “dearth of critical discussion of his views” until later in the past century after his death.28 We have seen, too, Richard Evans’s assertion that by the mid-twentieth century, the “reassertion of historical objectivity” had returned.29

Even the response to the later and more numerous postmodern thinkers has been brisk and often detailed, as we will observe below in our critique. But here we will only note that the majority of professional historians and philosophers of history have rejected these major postmodern positions as well. However, Evans still explains why the postmodern challenge concerns him. Beyond the charges themselves (which we will evaluate), he is concerned regarding other issues that seem to be mentioned far less often: lessened grant opportunities, lower prestige in competitive academic circles in light of the fallout from those declaring that the discipline of history is dead, as well as the effect on potential students. Further, too many professional historians are failing to take seriously the raising of postmodern doubts and have been more complacent than they ought to be.30

While there has certainly been further movement that continued to recognize some subjective aspects of historiography, Breisach notes the difference between pointing out certain tough issues and throwing overboard much of the entire historical enterprise as the chief reason why historians have not been overly receptive.31 Gilderhus has noted that the debate has largely remained theoretical and has had little “impact on the actual writing of history.”32 Remarking similarly, Tosh has also argued that “there is a limit beyond which most historians will not go in embracing Postmodernism . . . few are prepared to join in a rejection of the truth claims of history as usually practised.” He then adds that the postmodern challenge “flies in the face of common experience.”33

Some scholars have utilized much stronger, harder-hitting language to question the new postmodern trends. Historian Nancy Partner reports stunningly, “It is my impression that the ‘linguistic turn’ was a revolving door and that everyone went around and around and got out exactly where they got in. For all the sophistication of the theory-saturated part of the profession, scholars in all the relevant disciplines that contribute to or depend on historical information carry on in all essential ways as though nothing had changed since Ranke, or Gibbon for that matter.”34 Partner goes on to state regarding this linguistic approach to philosophy of history that “the hectic phase of that attack on positivism, much of it mischievous and antic, seems to have played itself out. It has to be emphasized that nothing whatever was settled or decided, much less defined or disproven.”35

Commenting on Partner’s remarks like those above and noting that she is “undoubtedly correct,” philosopher Brian Fay appears to question the force and perhaps even the threat from the “linguistic turn” on historiography. He proclaims similarly, “Except for some interesting exceptions at the margins of the discipline, historical practice is pretty much the same in 1997 as it was in 1967: historians seek to describe accurately and to explain cogently how and why a certain event or situation occurred. . . . For all the talk of narrativism, presentism, postmodernism, and deconstruction, historians write pretty much the same way as they always have.”36

Could Partner and Fay be correct here? More seriously, could the postmodern time in the spotlight perhaps be drawing to a close, especially if these scholars are correct that these relativists have hardly affected the historical scene at all? Is it only a revolving door where very few ever change their positions? Perhaps worst of all, is Partner also correct that none of the traditional historical positions have been disproven?37

Is it even worse than this? If language is supposedly much of or even the most crucial component here, could the postmodern position itself amount chiefly to wordplay—possibly more like bluster and its own sort of power play? Is a fair amount of the postmodern historical challenge more “mischievous and antic,” as Partner states? What should be said about the sometimes high level of the invective, along with the dogmatic nature of the pronouncements?38

Licona argues further that “even some postmodern historians agree” with Partner’s and Fay’s critiques. Licona cites David Roberts’s comment that Breisach may be correct that postmodern trends have come and gone in the discipline of history.39

Jenkins also admits that postmodernist historians are in the minority. He states: “Protected by a continued adherence to common sense empiricism, and realist notions of representation and truth, most historians—and certainly most of those who might be termed ‘academic’ or professional ‘proper’ historians—have been resistant to that postmodernism which has affected so many of their colleagues in adjacent discourses.”40

Why does Jenkins seem to be displeased about the circumstances of this observation? It is common parlance among postmodernist historians to complain that the majority of those of their persuasion eschew philosophical discussion, such as metaphysics, epistemology, or metahistorical matters.41 It is almost as if they are somehow hinting that if their colleagues would only get out of their own small corners among the stacks of dusty books, facts, and dates, studying instead the philosophical underpinnings of their discipline, then they might perceive the “truth” of the postmodern position!

However, we have said above that many scholars in the prior round of debate came to the study of critical philosophy of history from the field of philosophy. Dilthey and Collingwood were among the philosophers who would probably have supported Jenkins’s complaint. But many others, among them some very noteworthy and influential thinkers, would not (or probably would not) have supported these chief postmodernist indictments of historiography. In this last group of opposing critical scholars belong major thinkers such as John Dewey, Isaiah Berlin, Ernest Nagel, William Dray, W. H. Walsh, Morton White, Hans Meyerhoff, and Christopher Blake, along with many others.42

It should be noted here most carefully that my point is absolutely not to argue that a head count or even one’s reputation is what solves this dispute. Rather, the assertion is that many more influential philosophers, each having published relevant works on these subjects, were more than willing to do precisely what Jenkins and White challenged philosophers of history to do, namely, to examine their philosophical foundations. However, this group of philosophers knows the issues and appears to be strongly convinced that it is the postmodernist historians who are seriously mistaken.43

The idea to emphasize here is that criticizing historians because many or even most of them do not engage in the more technical aspects of the philosophical discussion is an argumentative red herring—and it misses the mark by a wide margin. Many past and present-day philosophers of history are trained specifically in these areas, and they have found the relativistic responses to be lacking in a number of crucial areas.

Why have so many philosophers and historians in recent decades opted for some sort of a synthesis between discovering real historical facts even in spite of taking seriously the subjective limitations of historiography? Why did the older idealistic thinkers fail to embrace a fuller, more thoroughgoing relativism? Or why have the recent, more relativistic positions not really persuaded the majority of philosophical and historical philosophers of history?

There is little question for virtually all scholars that personal biases can and do distort data and affect one’s research, all the way from mild twists to what we have termed more egregious manipulation. There are many examples that could be chosen. Yet, it is also agreed that to hold that these subjective elements are so serious that they must undermine or even nullify the discovery of all historical conclusions is to stumble into a host of faulty conclusions, as we will document next. Philosophers and historians alike have noted numerous severe shortcomings with the more relativistic hypotheses. This is precisely why, at the end of the initial lengthy dialogue over these matters lasting over a century, the radical theses experienced both a bit of a comeback as well as “suffered a decline in status.”44

Historical Events and Analysis

We have seen that many idealist and relativist historians from approximately 1880 to the present have downplayed the objective element favored by the positivist and realist historians from Ranke onward, preferring to emphasize the more subjective roles involved in the process. The first round of discussions, up until perhaps 1950, contained much give-and-take, debate and rejoinder. Walsh enumerated four categories of subjective factors: the researcher’s personal inclinations, group biases, differing notions of historical interpretation, and worldview conflicts.45 Beard also produced a list of several similar influences, as did Gardiner.46

As expected, the realist historians countered with arguments of their own, and the exchange of ideas, both give and take, was quite insightful. Both sides moved steadily closer to the other in the process. For their part, the realists, or “objectivists,” largely came to recognize and admit many of the more subjective features of historiography.47 However, scholars like Nagel, Morton White, and even Walsh, as well as many others, continued to point out how and why much historical data could still be determined responsibly in spite of this bias.48

On the other hand, the idealists, or “relativists,” admitted that many historical particulars could still be ascertained from the available research.49 Actually, a number of such events, such as those indicated by archaeological artifacts, photography, and readings on various kinds of instruments, involved either a minimal amount of or even no human interaction at all.

Hence, the post–World War II synthesis described at the end of the previous chapter was the outcome of the earlier phase of the debate. But since that time, during the last two or three decades of the past century and into this one, the idealists have especially emphasized some different arguments, such as the role played by the interpretive and narrative aspects that tie together the historical reports. These have been regularly declared to be the more subjective elements and particularly get singled out as more biased, often being compared to, or even called, fiction. The realists, for their part, continued to maintain that historical events could still be deciphered from among the data when accompanied by careful research, evaluation, and critique, in spite of the biased angles in reporting.

Throughout the entire dialogue, from Ranke until the present, probably only a minority of professional historians have engaged in these more theoretical disputes in the philosophy of history. The majority of historians have continued to work in their own specializations, furthering the historical enterprise.

Since at least the middle of the twentieth century, then, most historians have preferred a synthesis of the realist and idealist outlooks. Present scholars generally pursue the likelihood of past events by utilizing the tools of historiographical research50 while still taking seriously their own limitations along with those of others, imposed on the research through various sorts of tinted glasses that color the world but of which we are commonly unaware. To a greater or lesser degree, while admitting these subjective influences, the majority of historians still conclude that we have at our disposal significant historical tools for researching the past and deciding what probably occurred in many circumstances.

There are numerous reasons why the majority of historians still opt for this synthesis between discovering true events of the past, in spite of having to do so probabilistically, and attempting to ascertain various subjective limitations. But White51 and Jenkins52 are most likely correct when they state that many historians are simply not interested in the pursuit of these philosophical matters.53

However, it is not merely personal preference alone that pushes many scholars in the direction of settling for probable conclusions regarding the historicity of particular events within their own specialized areas of research rather than participating in the debate over the pros and cons of these philosophical problems. The majority of scholars, who do not share these more overriding subjective concerns, additionally realize that those who do so often stumble regularly into a host of logical and factual errors. The result is that the idealistic attempt to nullify many historical conclusions may well be based on mistaken assumptions.

Recent philosophers and historians who tangle with these issues often agree in noting numerous, sometimes closely related, and overlapping problems with these idealist hypotheses, which accounts for the majority of academics refusing to take these perspectives.54 It is really intriguing, too, when the idealistic scholars themselves acknowledge these problems within their own methodologies. We will address five of these intersecting issues below, from across the spectrum up until the earlier, pre–World War II trends, as well as from the more recent postmodern developments.

Self-Contradiction

First, and quite devastating to any relativistic claims that take the position this far, the statement that all historical research is relative is itself quite contradictory. Philosopher Ernest Nagel argues that when such a claim is made regarding historical research, at least one nonrelative conclusion is obviously known, or the statement would be meaningless. But if it is known that all historical research is relative, why must we stop there? There may actually be even many additional nonrelative historical truths as well.55

Another philosopher, Christopher Blake, explains the criticism in slightly different terms: “Either Relativism is wrong or, if it is correct, then it is itself only a relative verdict.”56 At face value, then, we have a dilemma here: such comments require either that relativism be absolutely mistaken or, at best, that it is only relatively true!57

Speaking more specifically about the views of Jenkins, Kelly notes that the overall idealistic position has this same issue: the position “suffers from a major defect that threatens all relativistic and/or reductionistic views: if all history . . . is irreparably tainted by ideology, then so is Jenkins’ discourse about ideology.” As a result, these thinkers are simply “wasting our time.”58

Quite amazingly, even Charles Beard (frequently recognized as the “foremost spokesman” for historical relativism in the first half of the twentieth century)59 admits the force of this objection. Scarcely could the difficulty be stated any more strongly or forcefully than does Beard:

Contemporary criticism shows that the apostle of relativity is destined to be destroyed by the child of his own brain. If all historical conceptions are merely relative to passing events . . . then the conception of relativity is itself relative. When absolutes in history are rejected the absolutism of relativity is also rejected . . . the conception of relativity will also pass, as previous conceptions and interpretations of events have passed . . . the skeptic of relativity will disappear in due course . . . the apostle of relativity will surely be executed by his own logic.60

Licona lists a number of recent scholars, especially philosophers and historians, who raise the same or similar charges of the self-refuting nature of postmodern theorists and their ideas, making it a very common critique. These commentators include Richard Evans, Brian Fay, Perez Zagorin, Thomas Haskell, Scott McKnight, and Ben Meyer.61 Historian Tosh reminds us that postmodernism itself occupies a “historical context” whether it likes it or not. As such, postmodern approaches, “unless they have a firm anchorage in historical context, . . . amount to an imposition by the critic on the text.”62

So how might the idealist or postmodernist reply to the charge that their critique is self-contradictory? Spitzer states that the “standard response” is actually to embrace the criticism, “to affirm that historical relativism is itself historically relative”!63 We saw above that Beard did precisely that. In fact, Novick states, “The relativist critique, though powerful, was seriously flawed. Neither Becker nor Beard was a systematic thinker, and their formulations were often loose and inconsistent.” These two prominent skeptical historians even “cheerfully accepted” the philosopher’s charge of self-refutation!64

But if that is the case, it would seem that the idealist or postmodern historian would have to realize that they had just nullified their own critique! What force is there to the argument that historical truth is more or less nonexistent if the dispute in question is itself a meaningless charge? On what grounds, then, can the argument gain any traction whatsoever? Thus, the postmodern critique cannot thereby rule out historical research, or anything else for that matter, since it rules out itself in the process!

Another response might be that none of these historians is actually a thoroughgoing relativist anyway, at least not absolutely so, in the sense of denying all historical facts.65 We have agreed that such is probably the case, in that all of the most influential scholars we have discussed, from Dilthey, Croce, Collingwood, Beard, and Becker, up though Hayden White, Ankersmit, and even Jenkins, all allow for the historicity of at least individual facts.

But again, what proceeds from this response? It would appear to be the case here that since historical facts cannot be ruled out by a self-refuting argument, the most the idealist can do is endorse proceeding carefully in affirming well-established facts. But that is fine, and we will attempt to proceed in that manner in this volume anyway! Many if not most historians might agree this is what they are doing already. While the last comment could certainly be disputed in individual cases, the point is that this should bring us back to our careful work in the milieu of historiography rather than to the denial of history itself. So where is the force of the so-called postmodern revolution as it is related to the discipline of history? Is Kelly correct that, given the self-contradiction, we are merely wasting our time here?66

One of the major relativistic dilemmas amounts to something like this: deny all the facts, which apparently no major historian does (according to the critical comeback), and thereby commit the contradiction, as per Beard and many other scholars. A similar charge of contradiction would also apply to anyone who denies all the interpretation or narration of the historical facts as well. As Kelly retorts, “The postmodern claim that all metanarratives are to be rejected is, of course, itself a metanarrative.”67 So the claim is either itself false, or if it is true, then like Nagel in our example above, this opens the door for us to consider the possibility of other metanarratives also being true, including Christianity.68

Thus, either way we look at it, claims such as “there is no truth” or “there is no historical truth” are either false, in which case some (historical?) truth exists, or they are true, in which case at least these statements themselves express truth. In both cases, other examples of truth could also exist, including historical instances. This seems to be the direction in which Nagel, Blake, Tosh, Kelly, and even Beard himself are all heading here, in addition to the list of scholars mentioned by Licona.

In short, the initial critique of postmodern self-contradiction is a devastating one indeed. One may be as careful or even as skeptical as one likes, opting for various approaches, including more moderate, in-between methods with regard to which of the facts and interpretations may be accepted or recognized. But the data cannot all be denied, and this is willingly recognized by the specialists. In fact, this is the path chosen by virtually all historians, skeptical or otherwise. Even those who appear to deny the existence of historical facts will turn around and recognize data, as we have noticed here.

Therefore, some accept more data as historical, and some accept less. This is where probabilities also enter the picture. Within these parameters, some facts will be more strongly established than others, and the results will often contain both more as well as less sure results. However, the crucial point here is that we can still obtain knowable data even while being careful. At the very least, then, the bottom line is that historical cases can be built when this is done judiciously. This is one of the reasons why the minimal facts method is employed in this study, but more will be discussed on this topic later.

Logical Fallacy

Second, the charge that particular subjective biases must nullify or overcome normal historiographical procedures is a nonsequitur argument, thereby creating a fallacy of informal logic in the process. As philosopher Morton White asserts, “The mere fact that historians are biased is no argument against the existence of impersonal standards.” To hold that bias nullifies all historical knowledge is fallacious, perhaps analogous to declaring that a physician’s personal feelings on behalf of her patient’s sickness prevents her from making a proper diagnosis.69 Presumably, such feelings could potentially even increase the accuracy of the medical analysis, which would be good news for many of her patients!

Contemporary scholars have repeatedly made a similar critique. For example, philosopher Ernest Nagel concurs with White’s assessment and reasons similarly: “The bare fact that inquiry is selective [is] no valid ground for doubting the objectively warranted character of its conclusions.”70

However, postmodern historian Keith Jenkins argues that we cannot get from the ontological status of past events to any empirical connection in the present.71 But what, exactly, follows from this complaint? This is simply another form of non sequitur where the conclusion fails to follow or obtain. What connection is there between not presently being able to repeat, observe, or build some sort of bridge from the past and not knowing what happened in those bygone years? What sort of causal connection must we have between past occurrences and present knowledge?

In other words, we are arguing about the presence of probable data regarding the past, not whether the latter somehow has ontological status in the present. Exactly why does the postmodern historian despair without the ontological bridge? This did not bother past historians. Once the last eyewitnesses died out, we have always been on the same epistemic grounds. Is this supposed to be one of the best objections that postmodernism can offer?

Philosopher of history C. Behan McCullagh points out that we are not justified in jumping from conclusions like disagreements among historians or the incompleteness of our historical knowledge to the truth of skepticism. Rather, we should commit to good historical evidence. As he asserts, “We should be sceptical of descriptions which are not well supported, but accept as true those which are.”72

Chris Lorenz calls this general problem the “all-or-nothing” fallacy. If we cannot somehow “have it all” regarding the past, does that mean we actually get nothing whatsoever in the deal? If not some strict notion of historiography, is the only other option relativism? This sure appears wrongheaded.73 Historians have been dealing for a very long time in terms of likelihoods and probabilities. Why should this look so different?74

Skeptical biblical scholar James Tabor reminds us that “as long as we recognize our limitations of method and resist equating our own reconstructions with an absolute truth we can at least seek to approximate a standard of best evidence.”75 Good advice such as this will assist us in avoiding arguments that leap from shortcomings in our research, which is never perfect, to our inability to learn much of anything concerning the past in the manner of a non sequitur. We will point out below some specifics of avoiding this logical fallacy.

Inconsistency

A third indication of the inadequacy of the idealistic approaches is that these historians fail quite regularly to carry out the consequences of their own skepticism, as demanded by their own views, when they are writing history themselves. Anyone can be inconsistent at times, but relativists often seem much better at it than most other scholars, and it can be observed in their writings time and time again.

Perhaps one reason for the inconsistency is there would be very little history for them to write if their skeptical positions were both correct and evenly employed! Or, could it even be that their irregularities are due to their own lack of assurance regarding their position? Of course, other possibilities exist as well. Whatever the reasons, relativists often sidestep their own relativism and pursue the writing of the actual occurrences of history as if they had already forgotten that their product was inconsistent with what they had previously written!

Morton White criticizes Beard’s skeptical approach in that it did not affect Beard’s “own scientific work” on “the essence of history.”76 A major example is that Beard considered his own work on an economic understanding of the American Constitution to be “objective and factual.”77 Meyerhoff likewise recognized this problem, explaining that “Beard never reached a satisfactory middle ground” between the objective and subjective elements in his own historiography.78 Breisach agrees that “in fact, Beard never practiced his relativism consistently.”79 White goes after Beard’s position quite strongly and in much detail.80

This third critique does not only apply to Beard or to those scholars from the earlier, pre-World War II phase of idealistic thought.81 Other recent examples are not rare. Thomas Haskell criticizes Jean-François Lyotard, one of the most influential postmodernists, for criticizing realist historiography only to employ the same straightforward techniques when he resorts to historical representation. Haskell comments that Lyotard “puts his representational pants on pretty much the same way the rest of us do.” Nothing differentiates Lyotard’s technique from those realist accounts of the past that we hear regularly. Thus, while Lyotard opposes these realist methods, “he seems in the end, in practice, unable to escape it . . . he acts as if the past is real.”82

Perez Zagorin provides another instance. He reports, “Elizabeth Earmarth . . . makes many factual statements ostensibly about the past.” Further, she “frankly confesses” that her own accounts are written in realist language, but her answer is that she does not have to abandon history in order “to challenge its hegemony”!83

Some realists add more general comments regarding postmodernist tendencies toward inconsistency. Zagorin, in the essay just cited, adds, “Like historians, postmodernist authors tell stories about the past that they seem to hope and believe are true and consistent with the facts.”84 More pointedly, Fay asserts, “Most postmetaphysical metatheories implode because they utilize what they deny is legitimate.”85 Evans adds that postmodernism combines many “sometimes contradictory and conflicting ideas.”86 Licona provides several more examples.87

Kelly points out further that postmodern relativists are often not shy about taking much stronger positions than their theory would seem to allow when it favors a situation or view that they support. For example, “When the chips are down, most appeal to some sort of objective reality to settle the matter, with such appeals being seen as binding on all.”88 Kelly also reminds his readers that Hayden White modified his own position of historical skepticism in the light of new data regarding the nature of the Holocaust.89

It could be objected that this critique does not concern the essence of postmodernism, but merely its practice. Therefore, at worst, individual postmodernists should research and publish in ways that more consistently reflect their positions. Thus, they need consistency within their skepticism.

While there is some merit to this comment, the underlying issue seems rather to be whether especially the more radical postmodernists like Lyotard (as well as those like Beard who might be considered forerunners in some sense) can even write history in a way that is consistent with their own stated convictions. Perhaps the problem is that this outlook is long on hypotheses that are ungrounded by actual historical practice, thus failing to work out in reality. In other words, it may be the case that the difficulty does indeed indicate problems with the core or heart of the overall postmodern hypothesis rather than simply its practice alone, as many other scholars have noted. Granted, this may not be the most crucial of the critiques here, but it could end up being a hard-hitting one nonetheless.

Mitigating Subjectivity

Fourth, bias often (probably even usually) can be recognized, mostly weeded out, and corrected. After a detailed discussion, Nagel summarizes his conclusion to the issue: “In brief, therefore, although the historian is undoubtedly selective in the conduct of his inquiries, and although personal and social bias frequently color his judgment and control what conclusions he accepts, none of these facts precludes the possibility of warranted explanations for the events he studies.”90

This is why it is most frequently concluded by historians that we can largely avoid at least the most damaging effects of various biases, personal angles, and the colors of our glasses. One of our principal allies in this endeavor is dialogue with others, since they will often be able to observe our shortcomings better than we can ourselves. Even though various prejudices will probably never be completely uprooted, we can certainly decrease the intrusions.

Few scholars have commented on this issue more than Walsh, and virtually no one is more balanced. A moderate between the two chief philosophical outlooks we have outlined here,91 Walsh helpfully reminds us that “every reputable historian acknowledges the need for some sort of objectivity and impartiality in his work” to separate the facts from our feelings, propaganda, personal preconceptions, or misconceptions. While we will never succeed in neutralizing all the subjective elements, it does not follow that our historical accounts are therefore irretrievable. Arbitrary biases should not be tolerated and need to be rectified whenever possible.92

Moving forward to the more recent postmodern debate, Breisach explains well the overall situation: “For at least four centuries generations of scholars have developed a historical methodology—testing, retesting, and absorbing elements from other disciplines—until by now it can act as a wall of defense against the fanciful tale, willful distortion, and honest error, as well as a sufficiently reliable instrument for truth-finding.” As a result, various species of subjectivity do “not doom historiography’s ability to deliver useful results.”93 McCullagh adds that although we will never know the past absolutely for sure, there are often checks and balances against which we may size up our reports.94

Kelly agrees with these judgments. As he points out concisely: “Bias is hardly incompatible with objectivity properly understood.”95 How so? This is possible because “there are methodological tools, objective to a degree, which make it possible to make progress adjudicating such controversies.”96 So in spite of the selectivity, partiality, and just plain bias of our views and opinions, “none of this needs to compromise the integrity, accuracy, or objectivity of what is written.”97 As sort of a bottom-line result, then, “the historian must take care not to superimpose present concerns and issues onto a study of the past.”98 True, this is all easier said than done, but if Kelly is right, there is a potential path that might be attempted and striven for here as a goal. Perhaps even the majority of professional historians agree at least broadly with this route as well.99

Since we will later be applying these same principles in a New Testament historical framework, what historians, philosophers, textual scholars, and theologians have contributed in this context is also essential, as we reported at the beginning of this chapter. With few exceptions, their comments are often typical of what we have already outlined here. For example, these scholars likewise agree that neutrality and total objectivity in historiography are simply not options.100 John Meier suggests that we should become as aware as possible of our prejudices and work toward minimizing them.101

Subjective elements will always be present in the research, but historical investigations must proceed anyway.102 As historian Paul Barnett argues, we can strive to be aware of our preconceptions while still seeking the discovery of historical information, since the presence of empathy and good research principles are not mutually exclusive.103

In the historical research, as in the larger context of inductive studies, probability is our guide.104 As Robert L. Webb proclaims rather succinctly: “I have argued that all historical judgments are a matter of greater or lesser probabilities, whether concluding for historicity or against historicity.”105 Dunn agrees with other scholars that probable knowledge is very much compatible with faith: “There is nothing illogical or unreasonable in the combination of such trust with merely probable knowledge.”106

There is widespread scholarly agreement today, then, that although there are no neutral writings or writers, and many varieties and degrees of subjectivity, whether intentional, unintentional, or about everything in between, there are also many avenues certainly for reducing the power and effect of these biases. Likewise, there are also various paths and resources for overcoming the most serious types of these challenges.

Historical Facts

Fifth, the techniques and procedures that are normally applied during the historiographical process can yield epistemic conclusions.107 This alone is the most significant critique of all, and virtually all scholars agree with it.108 Since this method can successfully yield factual results, then no matter how careful the process needs to be, we can and should push ahead in our research. Postmodern doubts do not invalidate especially the best of these findings. Historians will of course differ on the specifics, but the best-evidenced details will still result in probable conclusions.109

Though taking a moderate view on this subject, Walsh makes the assertion that “historical conclusions must be backed by evidence just as scientific conclusions must.”110 Even Beard embraces the force of the evidence: “The historian . . . sees the doctrine of relativity crumble in the cold light of historical knowledge.”111

We mentioned above that contemporary postmodern historians, such as Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit, and Keith Jenkins, generally think that many individual facts of the past are knowable. The idealist historians before them, also categorized as relativists, likewise agreed on the ability to obtain past knowledge.112 Karl Mannheim, who is identified by Gardiner as “perhaps the most forthright proponent of historical relativism in recent times,”113 agreed that the expression of subjective aspects “does not imply renunciation of the postulate of objectivity and the possibility of arriving at decisions in factual disputes.”114 Supporting a case for knowable facts, Blake makes the comment that there is a large amount of historical research which is accepted by the whole community of historical scholars.115

Present-day scholars agree with many of these time-honored assessments as well. Breisach notes that contemporary historians have built up a number of methods by which to detect both subjectivity and error as well as to establish reliable techniques for discovering historical events.116 Tosh agrees that there is a body of research methods that links the historical process to established “conventions created by real culture and real social relations.”117 Historian Donald Akenson states that secular and religious historical scholars both utilize the same rules of research: positive evidence is exactly what is needed to affect and change the presumption that an event never occurred or that a saying had never been uttered.118

After a detailed study of postmodern historiography, Licona reports that recent doubts like some of those mentioned in this chapter have not appreciably changed the current scene in historical research. Realism has remained the dominant position.119 Licona outlines the three most common historical approaches today. Some prefer a “naïve realism,” where historical events are basically accepted based on method and confirmation without too much critical interaction. Second, postmodernism challenged the status quo, and this position “has attracted a few scholars.” Third is a realism where historical evidence is valued but where, after critical interaction, conclusions are “held with varying degrees of certainty.” Then Licona concludes concerning the last view: “This is by far how the overwhelming majority of historians view their practice.”120

Many other researchers have also confirmed these notions regarding the widespread, majority scholarly position that affirms the existence of at least some historical facts. George Marsden, Nicolas Rescher, and Stewart Kelly all report similarly after their own overviews of the field. Further, this applies to the majority of postmodernist scholars as well.121 Our citations and comments in this and the previous chapter with regard to Dilthey, Croce, Collingwood, Beard, Becker, Mannheim, White, Ankersmit, Jenkins, and other skeptics of various stripes provide quite a cross section of these views. As McCullagh comments, thousands of historical facts are accompanied by enough evidence in their favor “that no one doubts their truth for a moment.”122

For reasons such as these, we may conclude that attempts to treat historiography in a thoroughgoing relativistic manner are confronted by numerous problems, including more than the ones we have presented so far.123 Generally, postmodernist critics of philosophy of history along with the events themselves have failed either to establish their chief critiques or to attract very many historians who embrace their positions. Besides, we have seen that these scholars rarely dispute the existence of all historical facts. We noted McCullagh’s strong statement above, “I know of no practicing historians who admit that they cannot discover anything true about the past. They . . . do not deny that a lot of the basic facts they present are very probably true.”124 So, perhaps it should be assumed that the purpose of many such postmodern critiques is more about being careful, even skeptical, regarding the embracing of the data of the past rather than about denying altogether the existence of the past.

Granted, there are certainly subjective factors that often influence the historian’s research and writing, such as one’s perspectives and overall worldview. The presence of many such factors is no longer doubted, even by those who defend a realist view of historical inquiry.125

However, the presence of other subjective elements is more hotly debated, such as White’s notion of fictional emplotment used to string together and make sense of the events. It is worthwhile to recall again McCullagh’s crucial comment regarding this absolutely crucial topic: “An historical explanation or interpretation is objective if it can be proved superior to alternative explanations or interpretations according to commonly accepted criteria. When historians compare different explanations and interpretations it becomes clear that they do have criteria by which they judge them.”126 Thus, it is possible that even our interpretations can be the most likely explanations of the available data.

A rigorous objectivity is also possible in the sense defined above, following from the result of an accurate study and investigation of the data, including an application of the appropriate standards of criticism. This would include the entertaining of serious alternative hypotheses, all according to the standards of probability. Our best interpretive and explanatory conclusions need to be weighed as well. Any additional or later challenges need to be answered as well, and followed where needed by further defense or adjustment.

Conclusion

Among the various sorts of idealist, relativist, and postmodernist historians, we have mentioned many critical assertions, such as those regarding the inability to repeat or relive the past, or the effect of a supposed fictional literary emplotment or narrativization woven around the reported data. But does the conclusion simply follow automatically that historical reliability is significantly curtailed as a result? Why must these latter claims and assertions be accepted? There are no causal connections between these more radical declarations and our automatically not knowing what actually occurred before our time, especially where the evidence is at its strongest. So even with the absence of photographs, inaccessibility of direct experiences, or lack of additional physical traces, we may indeed know what happened regarding a great many occurrences in our past.127

At the very least, there are absolutely no compelling reasons why it should be assumed that postmodern or other species of skeptical concern must emerge from some of the more influential ideas here. Neither are there any causal pathways to eliminating the realist arguments for actual historical events, which, as we have seen, postmodern scholars appear to accept or allow anyway. When it comes right down to it, we require more than responses such as “what ifs,” “who was there?” and “that’s just your interpretation.” Perhaps it is “reasoning” such as that just cited concerning the Holocaust that keeps radical postmodern views on the outside looking inside.

As Cleland argues above, history shares with several of the hard sciences the same reliance on reasoning from the directly unobserved past to draw its conclusions.128 So unless there are probable, sustainable alternative hypotheses that successfully explain away the data that exist in the cases of superior scenarios, we must be prepared to allow the facts to stand. We must follow the evidential trails where they lead rather than cover them up, brush them out, or ignore them when we do not like where they are heading.

Chiefly in the previous chapter, we summarized several reasons why, in the mid-twentieth century, the realist and idealist historians arrived at what might best be described as a sort of synthesis between their two outlooks. In addition to the exchange of key ideas as the scholars dialogued through the essential issues, it was noted that crucial developments also occurred when major proponents from one side conceded particular aspects to their interlocutors. This happened in both directions too, as noted by Richard Evans.129

We also saw that it seems possible to note similar sorts of developments early in the twenty-first-century dialogue as well. After the more recent discussions featuring the main concerns of the realist and postmodern historical outlooks, there likewise occurred the acknowledgment of alternative views across both sides of the aisle. For example, John Tosh summarizes some of the progress that has been made in these current discussions. He notes that there is a recognizable past, even though realists know that our sources do not communicate with us directly, that human selection is involved, and that the historian in some sense molds the presentation. The result is that “history is neither an exemplar of realism, nor a victim to relativism. It occupies a middle ground in which scholarly procedures are upheld to keep the avenues of enquiry as close to the ‘real’ and as far removed from the ‘relative’ as possible.” To that end, historians police their own discipline in order “to enforce standards of scholarship and to restrain waywardness of interpretation. Peer-group scrutiny operates as a powerful mechanism for ensuring that within the area of enquiry they find so significant, historians are as true as they can be to the surviving evidence of the past.”130

Similarly, Mark Gilderhus remarks, “In defense of the truth-telling claims of their discipline, historians as a consequence have felt a need, on the one hand, to instruct historical fundamentalists who insist upon sacred and sacrosanct versions of an unchanging past and, on the other, to persuade unbelieving skeptics who deny its knowability.”131 Thus, “Although historians strive for some measure of objectivity, they also show their prejudices.”132

Thus, at the end of this discussion, we note both the presence of real data as well as its potentially more subjective interpretations.133 But how do historians actually carry out this process? We turn now to some of the important tasks of historiography.

Notes

1 Novick, That Noble Dream, 417–18, 480–91, and chap. 14 (see chap. 1, n. 65).

2 Novick, 573.

3 Novick, 596.

4 Novick, 628. Incredibly, Novick comments that the situation in the field of history was reminiscent of the comment at the end of the Old Testament book of Judges, where everyone did what seemed right in his own eyes!

5 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 147–48, cf. 205 for instance.

6 Historian Ernst Breisach draws a line of influence from the idealist historians in the 1890s to these much later postmodern trends. See Breisach, Historiography, 333–35 (see chap. 1, n. 24). According to New Testament scholar Michael Licona, “the three best known postmodern historians” are Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit, and Keith Jenkins (71). Of these, Licona points out that “although White and Ankersmit are bright lights among postmodernist historians, the leading light of the movement and most radical of the three is Keith Jenkins.” See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 77 (see chap. 2, n. 13). Interestingly enough on this last comment, philosopher Stewart Kelly argues that Hayden White is actually the “leading historian seeking to deconstruct and demystify traditional historiography in the last 50 years.” See Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 191 (see chap. 1, n. 15). Alan B. Spitzer seems to agree with Kelly, calling White “the most influential American subverter-from-within”! See Spitzer, Historical Truth and Lies about the Past: Reflections on Dewey, Dreyfus, de Man, and Reagan (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996), 3.

7 Postmodernist historians often speak well of the idealist or relativist historians we discussed above. This especially pertains to Croce, Collingwood, and sometimes Dilthey, who are probably the favorites, perhaps due to their more radical tendencies. (That the first three historians are mentioned more frequently than Beard and Becker and a few others may be due to them being European, as are many of the postmodernists.) However, American historian Hayden White also expresses appreciation for both Croce and Collingwood in The Fiction of Narrative: Essays of History, Literature, and Theory, 1957–2007, ed. Robert Doran (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), xiv and chap. 3.

8 Such as French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard’s comments in his essay “The Postmodern Condition,” in The Postmodern History Reader, ed. Keith Jenkins (London: Routledge, 1997), 36.

9 On the claimed similarities between history, storytelling, and fictional writing, see Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 193–97. Regarding the view of history and other disciplines as involving power plays, see Kelly, 82, 107, 120, 124, 145, 240.

10 Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 64–65.

11 Indeed, Hayden White states that there cannot be any history at all without some such narrative structure, what he refers to as “emplotment.” See White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 5.

12 One place Keith Jenkins raises the question is in Rethinking History (London: Routledge, 1991), chap. 2; cf. Breisach, Historiography, 331–37; Gilderhus, History and Historians, 111–24 (see chap. 1, n. 6); Tosh, Pursuit of History, 185–94 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

13 E. H. Carr, What Is History?, 10–12, 35 (see chap. 1, n. 11).

14 For instance, though his typical social and economic interests were quite different than the usual perspectives, Carr’s three-volume work, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923 (New York: Macmillan, 1950–1953), does not give the appearance of a scholar who mistrusts the ability to reconstruct past historical events. But neither is Carr as radical as some of the later historians.

15 See Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, 139–40, 151, 159 for some examples (see chap. 1, n. 68).

16 Foucault, 149–65.

17 Foucault, 162–65, 195.

18 Hayden White, Figural Realism: Studies in the Mimesis Effect (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 2. For the possibility of gaining historical details regarding the Holocaust, cf. White, Content of the Form, 78–80; White, “Historical Emplotment and the Problem of Truth,” in Jenkins, Postmodern History Reader, 292–96.

19 Novick, That Noble Dream, 600.

20 Jenkins, Rethinking History, chap. 2, nn. 8, 89.

21 Keith Jenkins, “Introduction: On Being Open about Our Closures,” in Jenkins, Postmodern History Reader, 10, 19.

22 Geoffrey Elton, The Practice of History (New York: Crowell, 1967).

23 Keith Jenkins, On ‘What Is History?’ From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White (Abingdon, UK: 1995), 2, 6. Similarly, Jenkins, “Introduction,” 3.

24 Jenkins, “Introduction,” 8. Jenkins applauds some similar comments by Robert Berkhofer on 20.

25 Jenkins, “Introduction,” 19–20. So as not to be misunderstood, it should be remarked very clearly here that the point in the last few paragraphs is not to somehow act as if, since the major postmodernist interpreters actually do allow for real historical facts, somehow the realist historians therefore “win.” The comments regarding White and Jenkins immediately above should make it clear that while certain events certainly occurred, many other problems, such as the nature of interpretation and meaning, complicate matters seriously. Thus, that there are actual historical events certainly does not close the book on these chief issues. So the existence of “facts” is not the entire point of this discussion. As Richard Evans summarizes Jenkins’s position, it is not so much that we study the past, but rather what others say about the past. See Evans, In Defense of History, 83 (see chap. 1, n. 11).

26 Lyotard, “Postmodern Condition,” 36.

27 Breisach, Historiography, 333.

28 Dray, History as Re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood’s Idea of History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

29 Evans, In Defense of History, 31.

30 Evans, 4.

31 Breisach, Historiography, 407–8.

32 Gilderhus, History and Historians, 118.

33 Tosh, Pursuit of History, 194–95.

34 Nancy Partner, “History in the Age of Reality-Fictions,” in A New Philosophy of History, ed. Frank Ankersmit and Hans Kellner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 22.

35 Partner, 23.

36 Brian Fay, “Nothing but History?,” History and Theory 37 (1998): 83.

37 Of course, since the time Partner and Fay published their comments, the scholar that some call the most radical of the postmodernist historians, Keith Jenkins, has emerged. In terms of influence, does his work change any of this critique? Would the state of the overall question be evaluated any differently today? What about Partner’s charge that the postmodernists have not disproven any arguments? This is significant whichever way it is answered.

38 It should be noted carefully that, except for the three words quoted from Partner, I am not saying that Partner, Fay, or anyone else is charging the things in this paragraph. I’m simply raising a few questions for discussion, without clear responses.

39 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 86–87. For Roberts’s article, see “Postmodernism and History: Missing the Missed Connections,” History and Theory 44 (2005): 252. For Breisach’s thoughts, see Historiography, 335–37, 407–10.

40 Jenkins, “Introduction,” 1, also 12.

41 Such as Jenkins, “Introduction,” 1, 8; White, Figural Realism, 1.

42 The ideas and key works of these philosophers can be found throughout this chapter as well as the previous one.

43 It might be charged that the philosophers just named were from the past generation and therefore were not exposed to the full force of the postmodern arguments. Several things need to be pointed out here. The past generation still debated the influential and sophisticated relativistic ideas of Dilthey, Croce, Collingwood, Beard, and Becker, among others, many of whom, as we said, are much appreciated by today’s postmodernists. Further, relevant publications of several of these philosophers, such as Morton White’s Foundations of Historical Knowledge (see chap. 1, n. 58), William H. Dray’s “Philosophy of History” (see chap. 1, n. 6), or Patrick Gardiner’s “The Philosophy of History,” 6:429, 432–33 (see chap. 1, n. 6), as well as Gardiner’s edited text Philosophy of History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), were all written just a few years before Hayden White’s famous text, Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978). Many of these ideas were discussed at that time, even as extensions of the earlier debates just mentioned. Moreover, Dray, for one, published other volumes that extended well into the time of the postmodern writers, such as Perspectives on History (London: Routledge, 1980), History as Re-enactment, and On History and Philosophers of History (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Lastly, our critique below will include several responses to the postmodern views from contemporary philosophers.

44 See Hans Meyerhoff’s own comments in Philosophy of History, 119 (see chap. 1, n. 8), as he discusses the views of Carl Becker and Charles Beard.

45 Walsh, “Can History Be Objective?,” 216–24 (see chap. 1, n. 20).

46 Charles Beard, “That Noble Dream,” in The Varieties of History, ed. Fritz Stein (Cleveland: World, 1956), 323–25; Gardiner, “Philosophy of History,” 433.

47 One of the key indications that a genuine exchange of ideas was occurring between the sides was that, precisely because the realists came to freely recognize the bias involved in all human views and reporting, the term objectivist no longer quite described them without serious nuance. After all, it was now recognized that it was impossible even to hold views or write without doing so from particular perspectives or angles. Further, views could only be held according to the canons of probability. Hence, no scholars were “objectivists” in the older sense of the term.

48 For a critique of the earlier relativistic trends through the mid-twentieth century, including much of the interplay between these scholars, see Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 265–73.

49 Like the comment above regarding the realist compromises that were made through interacting with the various idealist positions, no longer could the idealists properly be called “subjectivists,” except perhaps with reference to particular, narrower moves. But for example, concerning one of the chief issues in this volume, namely, the existence of actual historical facts, all (or at least virtually all) of these scholars freely acknowledged that many historical facts could be known to have occurred in spite of the precarious nature of knowledge and the personal preferences of the researchers. Still, it therefore remains a rather puzzling comment when Novick refers to Hayden White as being associated with the new, radical “extreme ‘nihilistic relativism’ within the profession.” Novick, That Noble Dream, 599. However, this could have much to do with the relatively early publishing date of Novick’s volume (1988), when many of the nuances of historical postmodernism had not come to light and its interactive nuances had not more fully emerged.

50 This is the topic of our next chapter.

51 Kelly levels four criticisms at Hayden White’s overall postmodern approach. (1) White’s four literary criteria are not obligatory for the writing of history. Why must anyone think that such a pattern is always necessary? (2) White’s projected process of historians establishing a fact followed by “emploting” or developing a narrative regarding such occurrences “assumes a sharp fact-theory distinction” that is grounded in the very modernistic theory that White rejects. Further and much more crucially, even if White were correct about this process that he asserts, the narrative portion constructed by the historian need not be a false or incorrect judgment. In fact, the historian’s configuration could really be an entirely accurate narration. (3) The vast majority of historians do not think they are constructing a fictional narration or any other kind of artful composition. As they conceive it, they at least think they are seeking and presenting truth, and they strive toward that goal. If they are mistaken in this assumption, their view is either corrected or rejected when it is reviewed by other historians. (4) White’s criticisms leave the door open to almost any sort of hypotheses concerning history that may come along, however ungrounded. In short, Kelly notes that White’s criticisms do “nothing that would undermine a modest historical realism.” For further details, see Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 193–200.

52 Kelly also directs four major critiques of Jenkins’s attack on objectivity in the writing of history. (1) Human life as a whole is generally narrational in nature, so such a process is not some alien encumbrance that is foisted upon historical research in some prejudiced manner as just recently discovered by deconstructionist authors! (2) In the writing of good history, careful standards are employed to ensure the accuracy of the overall narrational product, such as carefully and fairly procuring reliable data, securing the evidence on its behalf, as well as placing the data into a coherent narrative. (3) The vast majority of historians would attest that literally thousands of historical facts can be ascertained clearly, untainted by human subjectivity of various sorts. (4) “Jenkins’ view suffers from a major defect that threatens all relativistic and/or reductionistic views”: if all human thought is subjectively tainted in the manner outlined by postmodernists, then Jenkins’s own thoughts must suffer the exact same fate. In such a case, then, Jenkins is “wasting our time” and poses no threat whatsoever to historical realism. See Kelly, 207–11.

53 Jenkins, “Introduction,” 1, 8; White, Figural Realism, 1.

54 That is to say, there is some overlap between aspects of these critiques that are not necessarily to be construed as entirely separate considerations.

55 Nagel, “Logic of Historical Analysis,” 203–15 (see chap. 1, n. 66).

56 Christopher Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” in Theories of History, ed. Patrick Gardiner (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 332; cf. also 343. See also Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, 42–43 (see chap. 1, n. 37).

57 Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” 335.

58 Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 210.

59 This is Meyerhoff’s evaluation in Philosophy of History, 138.

60 Beard, “Written History,” 147 (see chap. 1, n. 66). Rather incredibly, Novick points out that Beard and Becker even “cheerfully accepted” the philosopher’s charge that their positions employed self-refuting reasoning! See Novick, That Noble Dream, 278.

61 For details, see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 79–81.

62 Tosh, Pursuit of History, 190–91, 196.

63 Spitzer, Historical Truth and Lies, 3.

64 Novick, That Noble Dream, 277–78.

65 Spitzer, Historical Truth and Lies, 3. Intriguingly, Spitzer asserts here that one of the more pragmatic reasons for not being willing to dismiss all truth is that such a stance would leave the postmodernist without adequate grounds for critiquing “deplorable” societal conditions such as racism, sexism, and so on apart from one’s own preference! Hence, this philosophical outlook seems to be looking even less and less adequate!

66 Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 210–11.

67 Kelly, 133.

68 Kelly, 133.

69 White, “Can History Be Objective?,” 194–95 (see chap. 1, n. 66). White borrowed the analogy of the physician from Sidney Hook (199).

70 Nagel, “Logic of Historical Analysis,” 210.

71 Jenkins, “Introduction,” 10.

72 McCullagh, Truth of History, 5 (see chap. 2, n. 1).

73 For example, I acknowledge Stewart Kelly’s suggested comment here that a species of modest foundationalism may serve as a middle road between Cartesian foundationalism and a thoroughgoing skepticism.

74 Chris Lorenz, “Can Histories Be True? Narrativism, Positivism, and the ‘Metaphorical Turn,’” History and Theory 37 (1998): 314, as cited by Licona in Resurrection of Jesus, 81.

75 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 316 (see chap. 1, n. 18).

76 White, “Can History Be Objective?,” 200–201.

77 Beard, Economic Interpretation (see chap. 1, n. 68); cf. White, “Can History Be Objective?,” 190–96, 200–201. White further charges Beard with contradicting himself on whether or not it is possible for history to be done in a neutral manner (196–97).

78 Meyerhoff, Philosophy of History, 138.

79 Breisach, Historiography, 333.

80 It should be noted too that Beard’s work in question was not a momentary lapse in a brief response over the few pages of an article, for instance, but occurred in his volume of over 300 pages in length, which White analyzes, finding that it comes far short of careful logical standards. In one example, he compares Beard’s statements, showing that some of Beard’s chief irregularities and inconsistencies come when he simply wants to make room for his own private preferences. Like other realist commentators we have mentioned, White thinks that the idealist position begins with “the assumption that we can never have a complete history” (193). While freely admitting subjective issues at work in the historiographical process (194), White proclaims that it is a non sequitur to go from these assertions to the relativistic position, or to not being able to ascertain historical data (194–96). As White notes, in 1934 while arguing his relativistic position, Beard said that no historian can be “coldly neutral” and that such a stance has been “challenged and rejected” (196–97). But then just a year later, while still holding his “extremely relativistic views,” Beard commented in the introduction to the new edition of his work on the Constitution that such an analysis could indeed be “coldly neutral” (196)! This appears to give the impression that for Beard, historical research can be objectively true only when it is something that he really desires to be so. White concludes, “This contradiction is typical of Beard’s later writings on this subject. . . . Beard never gave any evidence of being able to comprehend this problem” (197). White judged that Beard was guilty of a common error in philosophy of history: confusing “the psychology of historical interpretation with its logic” (199). Beard’s methodological faith was even sufficient to “justify historical distortion” (199) and turned out to be “most implausible . . . obscure and contradictory . . . a lack of respect for logical rigor and clear thinking” (200). All pages here are taken from White’s essay “Can History Be Objective?”

81 For instance, Breisach notes that not only Beard but also Becker “veered away” from their interpretations when the results did not fit as well with their notions of “liberal democracy.” See Breisach, Historiography, 332–33.

82 Thomas L. Haskell, “Objectivity Is Not Neutrality: Rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream,” History and Theory 29 (1990), 155–56, as cited by Licona in Resurrection of Jesus, 80–81.

83 Perez Zagorin, “History, the Referent, and Narrative: Reflections on Postmodernism Now,” History and Theory 38 (1999): 14, as cited by Licona in Resurrection of Jesus, 79–80.

84 Zagorin, “History, the Referent, and Narrative,” 14.

85 Fay, “Nothing but History?,” 84.

86 Evans, In Defense of History, 222n6.

87 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 79–89.

88 Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 112. Later, Kelly cites Goss and Levitt, who charge postmodernists with speaking in total confidence about virtually any aspect of human thought and experience that they care to, almost always with an assurance that absolutely belies their aversion to what they can know for sure (227).

89 Kelly, 199, 204.

90 Nagel, “Logic of Historical Analysis,” 215, cf. also 212–13.

91 Meyerhoff agrees in his comment in Philosophy of History, 215. A helpful example of Meyerhoff’s comment here is Walsh’s conclusion to the selection in this volume on 224.

92 The quotation is from Walsh’s volume Philosophy of History, 19 (see chap. 1, n. 21); cf. other insightful comments by Walsh in his “Can History Be Objective?,” 222, 224; “Limits of Scientific History,” 60–61, 74 (see chap. 1, n. 66); Walsh, “‘Meaning’ in History,” 60–61, 74 (see chap. 1, n. 66); cf. Gardiner, “Philosophy of History,” 433.

93 Breisach, Historiography, 408.

94 McCullagh, Truth of History, 38. Peter Novick recounts a story that has sometimes been retold in historical works that illustrates the comments of Briesach, McCullagh, and other historians. Novick relates that Princeton University Press published David Abraham’s 1977 revised University of Chicago PhD dissertation with the title The Collapse of the Weimar Republic, Political Economy and Crisis. Subsequently, a rather large debate developed as many scholars complained about various factual, research, and other problems in the volume. According to Novick, these “errors were particularly serious” (616), but the point is that the relevant historical research was able to uncover many of these more subjective matters. See Novick, That Noble Dream, 612–21. Jon Wiener also includes the Abraham situation along with other accounts in his work Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower (New York: New Press, 2005), chap. 5.

95 Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 204.

96 Kelly, 215.

97 Kelly, 217.

98 Kelly, 213.

99 For an exceptionally noteworthy volume addressing some of the actual workings of these issues, including how historical and other disagreements might be settled, see Spitzer, Historical Truth and Lies. One of the main contentions in this book is that when crucial issues are at stake, even postmodernist thinkers regularly resort to the same objectivist methodologies, arguments, and conclusions that they have elsewhere rejected (see esp. the introduction to this book).

100 That neutrality is not an option, even in the name of religious belief, is acknowledged regularly. For just a small sampling of some theologians and philosophers who agree, see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus, 73 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 36, 82–88, 137, 398 (see chap. 1, n. 15); Johnson, Living Jesus, 31, 122 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 106 (see chap. 1, n. 19); O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 61 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 129 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Davis, Risen Indeed, 172 (see chap. 1, n. 16); Padgett, “Advice for Religious Historians,” 293–94 (see chap. 1, n. 17).

101 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:443 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

102 Favoring historical investigations in spite of the various sorts of subjective elements are: Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 5–6 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 170–71 (see chap. 1, n. 42); Grant, Jesus, 200 (see chap. 1, n. 24); Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 36–37, 44, 82–90, 95; G. T. Eddy, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Consideration of Professor Cranfield’s Argument,” Expository Times 101 (1990): 327–29; Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 106–7; Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 180–81 (see chap. 1, n. 24), among many others. It should be noted that approximately half of these researchers above are skeptical scholars.

103 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10–11 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

104 Agreeing on the requirement of utilizing probabilities as the proper guide for research, even in matters of a historical foundation for faith, are historians such as Grant, Jesus, 201; McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, 16 (see chap. 1, n. 40); Wand, Christianity, 51–52 (see chap. 1, n. 22); Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 13; Walsh, Philosophy of History, 19; Gilderhus, History and Historians, 118; Kennedy, History of Reasonableness, 128, 146–67 (see chap. 1, n. 40); and Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 4–6 (see chap. 1, n. 40). Most New Testament historians, textual scholars, and theologians would also agree, including Lüdemann and Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 6; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 170–71; Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 317; Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 129 (see chap. 1, n. 43); Wright, “Early Traditions,” 138 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 101 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 161 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 340 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 280–81 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Pannenberg, Jesus, 99; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:361 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 78 (see chap. 1, n. 44); O’Collins, “Resurrection Revisited,” 169–72 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 25, 28, 30 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 294 (see chap. 1, n. 44). This list also contains numerous skeptical scholars who would still include their own views here.

105 Robert L. Webb, “Methodological Naturalism: Engaging the Responses of Robert J. Miller and Amy-Jill Levine,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 9 (2011): 219 (Webb’s emphasis).

106 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 105n19.

107 McCullagh argues that for philosophers of history, “the most popular theory in recent years has been that historical inferences are arguments to the best explanation of a body of available evidence.” See McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, 16. See also Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2004).

108 McCullagh remarkably avers, “I know of no practicing historians who admit that they cannot discover anything true about the past. They . . . do not deny that a lot of the basic facts they present are very probably true.” He goes on to remark that philosophers of history will make additional responses to any challenges, but historians are basically content to leave the matter here. See McCullagh, Truth of History, 15.

109 Regarding interpretation of the historical facts, which is perhaps the most troubling aspect for postmodernists, McCullagh concludes with the absolutely crucial response that “an historical explanation or interpretation is objective if it can be proved superior to alternative explanations or interpretations according to commonly accepted criteria. When historians compare different explanations and interpretations it becomes clear that they do have criteria by which they judge them.” See McCullagh, 308.

110 Walsh, “‘Meaning’ in History,” 301. Most historians of the past generation as well as contemporary scholars agree with this factual process of fact-finding. For the former, see Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, 42–43; Passmore, “Objectivity of History,” 79–80, 88 (see chap. 1, n. 66); plus each of these three essays in Gardiner’s Theories of History: Berlin, “Determinism, Relativism, and Historical Judgments,” 324–29; Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” 331–32, 339; White, “Historical Explanation,” 365. For contemporary historians, see the discussion below.

111 Beard, “Written History,” 148.

112 For some impressive texts on the ability to determine actual historical data according to the best-known relativists from the century or so before Hayden White, see Dilthey, “Understanding of Other Persons,” 224 (see chap. 1, n. 55); Croce, “History and Chronicle,” 228 (see chap. 1, n. 56); Collingwood, Essays in the Philosophy of History, 102–3 (see chap. 1, n. 57), and in his work “Historical Imagination,” 79–84 (see chap. 1, n. 56); Beard in both Economic Interpretation and “Written History,” 141, 149; and Becker, “What Are Historical Facts?,” 122–28, 134, 136 (see chap. 1, n. 61); cf. Becker, Heavenly City, esp. chaps. 1 and 2 (see chap. 1, n. 68). Similar to our earlier remark above, it is important to note that it is precisely for these reasons that the label “skeptics” probably represents these idealistic scholars better than “relativists,” which seems to be a bit of a misnomer for these older thinkers as well as for the more recent postmodern historians.

113 Gardiner, Theories of History, 269.

114 Karl Mannheim, “Sociology of Knowledge,” 244–47 (see chap. 1, n. 68).

115 Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” 331.

116 Breisach, Historiography, 408.

117 Tosh, Pursuit of History, 195.

118 Donald Harman Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. 297n3.

119 Kelly argues a proposal for modest realism, revolving around ten points (a few of which are modified somewhat): (1) “The historical record is far from complete” (213). (2) Writing history “is a dialogue between the present and the past” (213). (3) “History is massively selective” (214). (4) Facts do not carry their own explanations or meanings (215). (5) “Objectivity does not require detachment or neutrality” (215). (6) “Substantive historical claims are defeasible” (216). (7) Writing history requires fairness (217). (8) We must distinguish between ideas and beliefs being socially constructed and the actual objects of beliefs being socially constructed (218). (9) “Physical objects are not socially constructed and are irreducible to such constructions” (220). (10) “History, much like science and philosophy, is fundamentally interested in explanation” (222). Kelly also states a major realist proposition that he terms the “Default Position” (DP), namely, that “some claims of historical knowledge (historical claims) are epistemically justified” (224). Then he defends this “DP” against the following five potential defeaters: (1) “There is no such thing as transcendent truth” (225). (2) “Knowledge, reality, and truth are the products of language” (228). (3) If any transcendent or objective truths exist, “they would be inaccessible and unknowable by human beings” (236). (4) “There are no privileged epistemic positions, and no certain foundations for beliefs” (237). (5) Appeals to truth serve the purpose of domination and repression (240). See Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 211–44.

120 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, the quotations are found on 89; cf. 83.

121 George M. Marsden, “Christian Advocacy and the Rules of the Academic Game,” in Religious Advocacy and American History, ed. Bruce Kuklick and D. G. Hart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 8; Nicholas Rescher, Objectivity: The Obligations of Impersonal Reason (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1997), 199–200; see Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 8n34, 112–15, 127, 198, 201, 206, 212, 216–18.

122 McCullagh, Truth of History, 13.

123 Instances of these additional critiques are not difficult to locate in the relevant literature. In an insightful comment, Fischer holds that relativists often confuse knowledge itself with the means by which it is acquired. See Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, 44–45. Morton White adds, as we mentioned earlier, that the relativist critique is frequently “a confusion which is typical in the philosophy of history, the confusion between the psychology of historical interpretation and its logic.” See White, “Can History Be Objective?,” 199. Another major issue is that while relativists recognize both the necessity and existence of objectively known historical facts, these data are still often subordinated due to the role of interpretation. For a helpful study of this topic, contrast Collingwood’s key distinction in “History as Re-enactment,” 251–58, between the “outside” and the “inside” of an occurrence. Isaiah Berlin levels still another question to keep in mind: common terms such as subjective and relative either “need correlatives, or else they turn out to be without meaning themselves.” In short, what is the standard that we use for our comparison for these and other words? See Berlin, “Determinism, Relativism, and Historical Judgments,” 324, 328. Blake agrees with Berlin, complaining that otherwise “no alternative recognisable sense” of meaning exists for the subjective vocabulary. Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” 335.

124 McCullagh, Truth of History, 15.

125 As even strong realists like Nagel and many others clearly admit in “Logic of Historical Analysis,” 215. McCullagh states, “Most historians will agree that their syntheses of historical events reflect their interests, that they pick out those patterns in the past which they think to be of historical, ethical, or political importance.” But these historians do not think that this “renders their accounts of the past entirely subjective.” See McCullagh, Truth of History, 4. As McCullagh notes elsewhere, historical descriptions are discussed according to their justification and are either true or false, while interpretations and explanations are distinguished from the former, even though these latter results can still be judged according to whether they are “more or less adequate.” See McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, 14. Similarly, Evans also acknowledges these corrigible factors; see Evans, In Defense of History, 216, 219–20.

126 McCullagh, Truth of History, 308.

127 One major mainstay of the recent historiographical discussion concerns testing methodologies with application to the subject of the Jewish Holocaust. Kelly lists some of the strongest evidences which indicate that Auschwitz was indeed a death camp, such as Goebbels’s diary, the commandant’s autobiography, the ruins of the gas chambers, German and Jewish photographs, eyewitness testimonies, and so on—literally “millions of pieces of evidence.” See Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, esp. 251, for a list. Yet, revisionist Holocaust deniers question nearly everything, referring to many of the claims as fantasy. But it seems that particular postmodernists were heavily criticized for their stance here. We have already mentioned above how White changed his own position on the Holocaust; see Kelly, 198–99, 254.

Frankly, if Michael Licona is correct in his examples pertaining to the Holocaust, then there are virtually no words to describe some of the conclusions reached by some postmodernist commentators and their critiques of realism; cf. Licona’s summary in Resurrection of Jesus, 77–78. What can be said if it is the case that these skeptics are content to question particular aspects of the Holocaust on grounds such as those described by Wulf Kansteiner’s thoughts on Jean-François Lyotard’s supposed catch-22, namely, that the Auschwitz survivors “cannot attest to the crime committed because they did not experience the gas chambers themselves, while the victims cannot testify because they have been killed.” As a result, is it actually being suggested that all we can say is that the events that occurred at Auschwitz are somehow indescribable? Or rather, if Lyotard is more simply attempting to make this a critique of the “representational” or realist perspective, then it is simply an unfair caricature for more than one reason, but chiefly because realists do not require atomistic freeze-frames of every second to describe probable events or the most likely meanings that can be drawn from them. If so, then producing certain types of circumstantial evidence at a contemporary trial would have no evidential force. See Wulf Kansteiner, “From Exception to Exemplum: The New Approaches to Nazism and the ‘Final Solution,’” in Jenkins, Postmodern History Reader, 415. It should be noted that the last few essays in Jenkins’s edited work here discuss Holocaust issues.

128 This would be a good time as well to recall the words of Carol Cleland above, namely, that some of the hard sciences also rely necessarily on historical theses as well, such as “continental drift, the meteorite-impact extinction of the dinosaurs, the big bang origin of the universe, and, more recently, the hypothesis that there are planets orbiting distant stars.” For our purposes, the significance of these observations is this: “what all of these hypotheses have in common is explaining observable phenomena (e.g., the complementary shapes of the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa, the iridium and shocked quartz in the Cretaceous-Tertiary [K-T] boundary, the isotropic three-degree background radiation, the wobbling reflex motion of certain stars) in terms of their past causes” (987). In her conclusion, she contends that “when it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science” (990). See Cleland, “Historical Science,” 987–90 (see chap. 1, n. 4).

129 Evans, In Defense of History, 12. As an earlier example, Kelly noted Hayden White’s shift on the crucial subject of the Holocaust; see Kelly, Truth Considered and Applied, 199, as well as the insightful conclusion on 204.

130 Tosh, Pursuit of History, 198–99.

131 Gilderhus, History and Historians, 111.

132 Gilderhus, 112.

133 Thanks to Stewart Kelly for many insightful comments on this chapter.

4

The Minimal Historical Facts about Jesus

Since the early 1970s, my approach to resurrection studies has been to apply my minimal facts methodology to the New Testament writings and other early sources regarding the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus. This outlook initially attempts to employ vital tools and studies to ascertain any potentially well-verified, chiefly historical framework of data surrounding a knowable number of probable events pertinent to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances of Jesus. A somewhat lesser, clearly secondary goal seeks to identify the amount of scholarly recognition among specialists in relevant fields that exists for these same data, as a sort of common groundwork. This latter task is pursued in the next chapter, where lists of the data may be found.

Going back to at least nineteenth-century German studies, many critical scholars have attempted to ascertain which early reports can be utilized to compile a picture of the historical Jesus. During especially the last decade, an increasing number of other historical studies have also begun employing minimal amounts of data to understand what can most likely be known regarding events from the end of Jesus’s life.

In this chapter, we will define and examine the minimal facts method in more detail, concentrating on the nature, distinctiveness, and value of this approach in studying chiefly the resurrection appearances of Jesus, including what it might achieve and what it is not attempting to accomplish. This examination will precede later chapters that organize and examine a highly detailed number of historical data favoring these facts along with many recent critical scholars who agree or disagree. This will also include contrasting this method with other general approaches that defend these events in generally reliable ways, though these latter approaches may still be helpful. Nonetheless, establishing the historicity of individual Gospel texts would be an additional, independent approach to establishing the historical foundation for the resurrection. This second tactic strengthens the case for Jesus’s resurrection. But the minimal facts approach has the advantage of potentially indicating that Jesus’s resurrection occurred even if the New Testament texts are thought to be unreliable.

The Minimal Facts Method

For five decades,1 my contention has been that at the end of Jesus’s life there is a significant body of evidenced data that specialist scholars of almost every religious and philosophical persuasion who publish on these areas recognize as being historical.2 As the method employed throughout my writings, I have detailed this approach elsewhere on numerous occasions. The chief reason for this widespread agreement among scholars on the historicity of each of these facts is the excellent attesting support that each has in its favor, usually from a variety of historical and other considerations.3

The Criteria

As the central motif from my pre-dissertation days ever since, the foregoing has also served as the persistent theme in virtually my dozens of publications on this subject.4 For example, in my second of three debates on the resurrection of Jesus with philosophical atheist and miracles specialist Antony Flew, the dialogue began with Flew’s general acceptance of my larger list of a dozen historical facts.5

What are the prerequisites for an occurrence to be designated as a minimal fact? From the outset of my studies on the death and resurrection of Jesus, my thesis has been that there are at least two major requirements for an occurrence to be designated in this manner. Each of these events must be established by an abundance of strong evidences, usually by multiple critically ascertained, independent lines of historical argumentation. In addition, the vast majority of published contemporary scholars with credentials in relevant fields of study have to acknowledge the historicity of the event.

Of these dual criteria, I have always specified that the first is by far the most crucial, especially since this initial requirement even by itself is the one that actually establishes the historicity of the event. So if the case for historicity already has been resolved, this is an independent conclusion that stands regardless of whether any particular head count of scholars agrees. It is well-known that scholarly acclamation frequently changes, and even erudite opinions may be mistaken.6 In such a case, the minimal facts argument would miss the nearly unanimous agreement on the data by scholars, but it would still have the more crucial, factual portion of the argument on its side, assuming the plethora of evidence remained.7

Which Facts?

As for the historical facts themselves, my research has produced two lists of data. The shorter list has always been drawn from the longer set, this briefer collection being the minimal facts. The slight variations in number and details between these lists has been due to the current strength of the evidence plus the amount of scholarly recognition for each fact, especially since scholars have generally recognized more than just the shorter list of minimal facts alone. In other words, since scholars have conceded more than just these two listings of events, there was no necessity in always keeping them the same.

The longer catalog of events has usually been termed the “known historical facts” and typically has consisted of a dozen or so historical occurrences pertaining to the death and resurrection of Jesus that more generally meet the above criteria of facticity and scholarly agreement, but somewhat more leniency was occasionally employed in applying these two standards. Thus, less stringency is sometimes what has separated the two lists, especially in being less severe in achieving such high percentages of scholarly agreement than the near-unanimous requirements for the events in the shorter list. From this longer list, a lineup of four to six minimal facts were extrapolated.8 This slighter, stricter list is the major focus of this chapter as well as this entire study.9 More crucially, this shorter catalog of occurrences has almost always consisted of the harder-hitting data as well.

What purpose is served by providing both lists? Based on surveying and charting this material for decades, it can be asserted that many contemporary critical scholars, based on their own perspectives, may respond variously, perhaps by either happily recognizing, willingly allowing, or simply conceding far more facts than simply those included even in the long list, let alone recognizing a greater number beyond just the few minimal facts alone. The problem, however, is obviously that as the numbers of events expand, fewer scholars agree on all of them. Thus, sometimes having both a longer and a shorter list can be helpful when discussing greater or lesser amounts of scholarly agreement, even if longer lists might sacrifice having the highest percentage of scholarly participation, as would the minimal facts.

Hence more agreement from an even larger number of critical scholars could be gained by actually shortening both lists. Many, even among very skeptical scholars, have often voiced their agreement when their works were unpacked as well. These methodological moves have the benefit of bypassing much of the often-protracted preliminary discussions which frequently take place regarding which data are permissible by beginning with a sort of “lowest common denominator” approach. If I am correct in holding that the data that support these smaller bases are still sufficient to settle the most pressing historical issues pertaining to the death and resurrection of Jesus, then this is indeed a crucial contribution to the discussions. We will return below to some of the resulting ramifications of this methodology.

What Is Meant by the “Vast Majority” of Scholars?

An oft-asked question relates to my repeated references that the “vast majority” of scholars or “virtually all” of these experts agree with this or that conclusion. Can these phrases be identified in more precise terms? In some contexts, I have already been more specific. At least when referencing the shorter list of minimal historical facts, I most frequently think in terms of a 90-something percentile head count. Of course, this only applies to those scholars who publish their views and accept the historical fact or a close approximation of it. But researchers will not necessarily agree with one another regarding the particular interpretations that may be thought to accompany these occurrences. In other words, more than one interpretation may exist for most or even all of these facts, and various angles can be discussed.10

Nonetheless, these high percentages of agreement on many foundational core historical data still provide some common starting grounds in spite of different outlooks on these data. Even Allison does not dispute the minimal facts or the historical bedrock events while still raising many questions.11 Yet, some common basis is better than none. As Allison also states concerning the use of this minimal core, “The strategy makes sense in principle,”12 though of course it does not solve every issue.13 It remains the case that these facts are one of the most crucial reasons why the notions utilized here have gained a significant amount of positive attention in recent years.14

How closely do other scholars approximate when they report quite frequently that “most scholars hold that . . .” or “the majority view here is . . .”? Of course, it is almost impossible to differentiate what each author intends and how they estimate their numbers, but when similar phrases are found in the literature, we may wonder how the knowledge of such conclusions was established. Those who specialize in the particular topics being discussed are probably the best to consult on such matters. But even here, as illustrated well by Michael Licona, even very well-respected scholars can and do disagree in their evaluations of the scholarly head count—as revealed when estimations seem to be at odds with each other.15

Still, the regularity of citing majority views, and even the popularity of detailed scholarly surveys and overviews, serves to illustrate how much importance we attribute to such outlines and synopses of pertinent researchers, especially where such conclusions could be reasonably established. There is an incessant search for a methodological starting point. Studies of what most scholars think and precisely why they hold these positions can be very helpful.16 My own publications feature surveys of resurrection scholarship, often according to the various subtopics.17

How Is “Critical Scholars” Defined?

This raises a vital cognate question: Who should be included in such discussions as “critical scholars”? My tendency is to lean toward requiring such an academic to hold a research doctorate in a relevant field, to occupy a related teaching position, and to have peer-reviewed publications. In reality, however, many exceptions have been allowed here and there in my own surveys. For example, an increasing number of pastors now hold research doctorates and possess a good publication record. More commonly, the document in question may be someone’s only publication. For the most part exceptions should be allowed, especially if one’s research is viewed as authoritative or helpful by others with scholarly credentials.

Some have questioned whether or not evangelicals should count as critical scholars.18 However, when tough qualifications are delineated and satisfied, such as terminal degrees being gained in highly reputable contexts, how can authors be denied on any side other than by fiat or on account of adverse views? This is especially the case if research doctorates were earned from critical universities, seminaries, or graduate schools, and perhaps even more so when peer-reviewed publications have appeared in critical venues. Such credentials would indicate that, conservative or liberal or in between, the scholars have dealt at a high level with alternative positions. This likewise applies to atheist, agnostic, non-Christian, and other skeptical scholars as well. This at least seems fair. It cannot be denied that prejudicial views are held on all sides of these debates.

Further objections to including evangelicals sounds too much like prejudice: “Well, they’re conservative and they already believe the resurrection.” As we will point out below, everyone wears blinders of some sort, and skeptics or liberals who do not believe in Jesus’s resurrection are no more exempt from prejudice than are conservatives. Further, this criticism of evangelicals would also apply in the opposite direction, especially to the skeptical “mythicists” regarding Jesus’s very existence (where we most often encounter the lack of scholarly credentials), as well as to some other radical scholars.19 If we were only to include a more centrist study of critical scholars alone, what would be the result? Would it truly be an overview of current research, views, and critiques?

Breadth of This Research

To explain the particulars of my detailed overview of the death and resurrection of Jesus, my postdissertation research began about 1995 as a rather modest attempt to update my research bibliography beyond many of my earlier publications on the subject, chiefly from 1975 onward. This project slowly expanded in larger increments until it developed into a full-blown attempt to catalog a synopsis of recent resurrection scholarship. The study dominated five straight years of my full-time research followed by lengthy intermittent stretches of a few more years beyond that. In 2013, Ben Shaw became my research assistant.20 Quite remarkably, the project seemed to lack boundaries, and it continued to grow into a very large document of critical views alone, without critiques.21

The initial stage of the research involved the largest group of overall sources. In the beginning, the study began with classifying the major publications on each of the relevant resurrection topics. This included cataloging the majority of these publications and charting the representative authors, topics, positions taken, and so on, concentrating on both well-known as well as obscure scholars alike across the entire spectrum of skeptical to liberal to moderate to conservative assessments.

This survey moved to the next group of representative sources and then further. In each case, an exceptionally large document was being built by tabulating a very wide spectrum of positions and stances. The scholarly responses were divided into approximately 170 subissues and questions, all being related in some way to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Throughout each grouping, the interest coalesced above all around the most influential writers, their sources, and their responses to the central historical issues.

For the most part, no groups were favored or ignored, with one major exception. Above all, a key emphasis was placed especially on the works of critical scholars who postulated naturalistic or other alternative hypotheses to Jesus’s resurrection, or who raised similar skeptical questions. Somewhat aligned with this emphasis, many critical ideas were also sought out and tracked because they were quite creative and had influenced many others. Occasional critiques of these options, naturalistic and otherwise, were sometimes included as well, but almost entirely as they arose from fellow critical researchers who disagreed.

Of special note given the emphasis above, many of these naturalistic theses were postulated by writers with very little or no scholarly expertise to speak of, especially in the specific areas in which they were writing, though their views had received attention in certain limited circles. These nonspecialist hypotheses were nonetheless incorporated into the study as exceptions to the scholarship rule stated above due to their “creative emphases.” This was about the only exception to that rule. As a result, this aspect weighted portions of the entire work somewhat in terms of these far more radical proposals.22

Though neutrality is clearly impossible and will never be achieved, especially on highly charged subjects, one goal throughout this study was to endeavor to be more than fair to each of the potential positions. As just mentioned, if anything, one potential fault in the opposite direction included the cataloging of many of the most radical positions in the survey here. This was the only classification of sources where many of the authors rarely had the specialized scholarly credentials or relevant peer-reviewed publications to be counted in the first place. It is this group, too, that often tends to doubt or deny that Jesus ever existed and is heavily criticized for this among all of the other groups.23

However, given that many sources in this skeptical category and other liberal categories were included, this study could actually be judged as having been skewed in the skeptical direction far more than if the original requirements had strictly been maintained, namely, of citing only those with scholarly credentials in relevant areas of study, accredited faculty positions, and peer-reviewed publications. Still, many of these mythicist publications have been cited quite liberally here, even when the wide majority of mainline scholars, “liberals” included, rarely even footnoted these materials.24 Of course, this practice has probably even skewed the numbers of those who propose naturalistic resurrection hypotheses, since this group is easily the one that most frequently poses these views. Yet, these suggestions were purposely sought out here. This should be kept in mind when considering the portions of this work on these naturalistic alternative views.25

At the time of this writing, the overall bibliography in this study presently numbers approximately 4,500 sources and counting, the vast majority from 1975 onward published originally in French, German, or English.26 The result of these years of study was a private manuscript numbering approximately 1,500 pages that did little more than just line up the scholarly positions and details on these 170 key questions from the end of Jesus’s life. Very little commentary or additional interaction was included, thereby creating a catalog of current positions and the critical reasons for these views. By far the vast majority of this material has remained unpublished,27 though I have steadily released some of the results in essays that specifically attempted to provide overviews of some of these current academic discussions.28

To repeat, regardless of how much agreement there is across the scholarly spectrum on the nature of particular data, the interpretations will often differ. Otherwise, we would have no skeptical-to-conservative spectrum. But another point should also be noted here too: no scholar is simply “neutral” in their beliefs and opinions. A majority of skeptical scholars today often agree with conservative scholars that all writers, skeptics and conservatives alike, have their own “angles” or biases on what they report.

Therefore, we each wear our own “worldview glasses.” Believers may indeed assess the world with “Christian glasses” but atheists are no less guilty in looking at the world with “atheist glasses.” All individuals have their own perspectives.29 Liberal professors would theoretically be no less opinionated or prejudiced than conservative scholars, and vice versa, each bringing their preformulated opinions to the issues. Too often, virtually everyone believes something (especially in the areas of religion or politics) because they dearly wish that perspective to be true. The upshot is that although we will never reach unbiased perspectives, we need reasons for holding and reporting what we do.

Concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus, then, the attempt was basically made to take the time to go back and study the major ideas first of all. Scholars and sources across a broad spectrum of views could often be lined up in groups with similar views. Of course, it must be realized that such tracking does not “prove” anything about what actually occurred. It is too frequently missed in responses that this research simply cites trends, opinions, and views rather than indicates how we know that particular historical facts actually happened. That is why it is absolutely critical to recall that the minimal facts approach is thus a methodological procedure laying down the parameters. The epistemological portion of the study that deals with the evidence is the most crucial and follows in this volume.

Thus, knowing the scholarly “lay of the land” can provide an important methodological technique from which to discuss many of the key issues related to Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. After all, if even skeptical scholars were to agree with a basic outline of particular, knowable data, then such a foundation may probably be due to a well-evidenced and underlying “common ground” upon which the major questions may proceed. But that still must be determined, so we cannot stop here.

We must inquire as to what scholarly reasons may lie behind these agreements—it must be known why virtually all scholars hold particular data in common. This, in turn, will allow further discussions concerning which meanings make the most sense of these data, but this takes us too far down the road for now. Good data plus ascertaining where the chief agreement may lie are two helpful parameters around which this study will progress. But to assert the order again, knowing if there is evidence and where it may lie will provide a prior and more reliable indication of the reasons for any scholarly agreement on particular historical facts that may exist.

How Strong Is the Minimal Facts Method?

The minimal facts method exhibits several outstanding strengths, though only a few of these will be emphasized here. Its principal reliance on using many positive arguments per fact is its single most impressive feature. Chiefly due to there being a previous evidential foundation, the high percentage of critical scholarly agreement that may exist on each of the core data is also very impressive. These two components also allow us to begin with a small number of facts concerning which many or even most scholars may agree, at least in a general way.

Further, often missed or overlooked is that the minimal facts method does not begin with or require in any way some sort of prior belief in the supernatural quality or the inspiration of Scripture before this enterprise can be launched. Although this additional point may be even less apparent, this method does not even require that the New Testament be generally reliable. Any sense of a “high” view of Scripture is beside the point in establishing the central tenets of Jesus’s death and resurrection. Some sort of high view of Scripture may be the case, but the point is that it is not a part of this argument or approach. The method requires that the facts themselves be true on the grounds of probable historical research, such as those that have already been set forth earlier in this volume.

So the New Testament is not required to exist at some particular, prior level of verity before it can be utilized here. In other words, to ground these efforts, neither reliability nor inspiration must be the required underlying belief structure before further construction can proceed. To take this matter a step further, the New Testament texts could even be generally untrustworthy and still yield truths, among which could be these well-established data.30 It might be a little like a scholar who thinks that Homer’s Iliad is not especially reliable in general historical terms, but that some individual reports in it may quite likely be true.

Definitely, such a methodology has a wider opportunity of succeeding with those who reject supernatural notions of inspiration or even lesser views, such as the general reliability of the New Testament texts. Therefore, even rejecting a largely reliable or inspired New Testament text will by no means nullify the specific path of arguments put forward here. The critic may have a very low view of the New Testament text, and the argument here may still proceed.31

To gain a better perspective on this matter, consideration could be given to the position taken by Bart Ehrman and perhaps most skeptical scholars. Since the vast majority of these researchers presumably deny the inspiration and likely the general reliability of the New Testament as well, how do they arrive at the facticity of these same facts as well as a good many other New Testament data? As Ehrman states clearly, “Whatever one thinks of [the Gospels] as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources . . . the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources, no different from other historical sources infused with their author’s biases.” Hence, when skeptical scholars use these texts, it is “not because the Gospels say so.”32

Other examples from skeptical scholars are pointed out elsewhere throughout this study.33 Just a few examples of the many such researchers who acknowledge the likelihood of all sorts of relevant items regarding these areas include John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Bart Ehrman, who asserted the assured facticity of Jesus’s crucifixion. Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder, and Ehrman have all acknowledged the historicity of the disciples’ real experiences after the death of Jesus as well as their very early reports of these events. The members of the Jesus Seminar along with A. J. M. Wedderburn and Hans Conzelmann likewise concede the exceptionally early date for the disciples’ reported experiences. John Kloppenborg, John Alsup, and J. K. Elliott have all accepted early creedal statements in the Acts sermon summaries. Thomas Sheehan and John A. T. Robinson are among those who recognize the probability of the empty tomb discovery.

Another example of a slightly different sort is that virtually all (even skeptical) New Testament critical scholars, such as Helmut Koester, consider at least the seven accredited Epistles of Paul to be both genuine and very helpful in determining these early historical events. Ehrman even refers to these seven texts as “undisputed.”34

How can these moves be made (with many cases being affirmed strongly) by researchers who usually distrust the Gospels along with many other New Testament books, especially when many additional instances and scholars could be provided? After all, this is the most common tendency in extrapolating data from these first-century sources. Or again, these instances indicate how readily individual events and beliefs are affirmed as well as the conclusions being drawn regarding authenticity and historicity, even when these researchers support the items from sources that they usually consider to be unreliable. The chief point in all of this is that something similar to Ehrman’s statements above must be the case: that well-evidenced data often reside in texts still thought to be biased. These moves by critical scholars, even very skeptical ones, exhibit some similarities to aspects of factual arguments being developed in these present studies.

This does not at all deny that a strong case could be argued for the reliability or inspiration of the New Testament.35 But at this point, while still being a very important topic, it would be a protracted argument that would draw us far away from the stated topic of this present research. Nonetheless, general reliability views are listed below. Such a case can be defended well, and has been by many recent scholars, as we shall observe. It is simply not the main method in this context.

Thus, due to the present audience and wishing to challenge a broad swath of readers, the minimal facts approach begins with separate historical details that fulfill the qualifications that have been mentioned here. This allows us to put forward our best case when arguing for the central tenets of Christian theism—the Gospel data.

But what about those who concede all or most of the unadorned data but suggest a different hypothesis for the origin or cause of the events? Or how about those who agree with the facts but take an alternative interpretation of the material? Since there are differences between events and both their causes as well as their interpretations, such will often arise and are not to be avoided at all. Moreover, the reasons for some of the alternative options here quite often extend very far beyond the mere data at hand, such as being due to social, religious, or emotional reasons. But if the subjects are to be discussed at all, the alternative views will simply have to be explained and then researched through to the end of the options, as will be done in extended form in later volumes of this work, until the most satisfactory solutions can be established.

But what if a skeptical critic, such as a Jesus mythicist, denies some or all of the minimal facts used in a particular case? Initially it needs to be emphasized that the current list of recognized facts pertaining to Jesus’s resurrection are so widely admitted that even the most radical critical scholars generally accept their historicity.36 But someone may simply be unwilling to admit them, perhaps simply out of stubbornness. Conceivably, the individual may not be a scholar who knows the area of study. Yet, one can always argue in reverse. Recalling that the first and most crucial criterion above is attestation by multiple evidences, each individual fact could be examined in detail. In other words, discussions may begin with zero minimal facts, if need be, and then work up to the half dozen or so minimal facts needed by building the particular case in question and utilizing the available data along the way.

At each step, the deniers are free to respond regarding how they would work through any factual or other binds. The defenders should be prepared to respond to the resulting critical comments as well.37 Additional minimal facts could also be introduced, serving as an even more specific basis for certain related ideas.38

The Minimal Facts Method Contrasted with General New Testament Reliability Positions

Often among conservative scholars of various stripes, perhaps even the most widespread approach is to precede a study of the historicity of Jesus’s death and resurrection with a sweeping, detailed set of arguments showing that the New Testament is at least a generally reliable or trustworthy document.39 This is then developed as the basis that buttresses the historical framework undergirding the study of these events.

Overview of General Reliability Arguments

In the sense that I am referring to it here, general trustworthiness is the attempt to employ various arguments for the reliability of significant portions of Scripture without producing large amounts of specific evidence for particular historical events or passages. For example, one might argue that the overall text of the Gospel of Mark is generally reliable before moving to more particular conclusions regarding a specific miracle claim or doctrinal teaching of Jesus within this Gospel. These latter inferences are thought to follow largely because of the prior foundation provided for the Gospel as a whole.

For example, it might be argued that Mark’s Gospel is based in whole or in part on the testimony of the apostle Peter or on any other early and accredited sources.40 Or perhaps Mark’s text at many key places accurately reports specific data from this time, such as historical, political, geographical, religious, or social insights. Or maybe it is simply the case that Mark’s text is the very earliest Gospel account, and it may be dated even by very critical scholars to a much earlier date than normally assigned to this work.41 This could assist in placing the author in potentially the right place and time to write such a work, and so on. Of course, nothing keeps many of these items from potentially being combined as well. Based on such an argument, many scholars have concluded that we have reason to think that Mark may also have been correct when he narrated events or reported Jesus’s teachings.42

Which Scholars?

More commonly in recent decades, the chief argument for the general reliability of the biblical text has included the customary avenues of addressing manuscript quality and quantity, the early dates of the copies, various examples of relevant archaeological confirmation, perhaps some attestation from extrabiblical sources, and so on. Some scholars, especially New Testament specialists, then move on to more specific matters, such as the authors of the books, potential sources, and the dates of composition. These strategies often occur in both scholarly as well as more popular treatments, where even a sampling would be massive.43

Neither are evangelicals the only ones to pursue New Testament reliability arguments.44 Although not as commonly employing fascinating and sometimes more nuanced arguments, mainline critical scholars have also contributed some excellent studies to these textual discussions. Some would even argue that Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses may well be the single best book of all here.45 But other volumes also certainly deserve to be mentioned.46

Strangely enough, even more radical scholars have made some particular points that are used in the arguments above despite them being unwilling to hold to the general reliability of the text itself. Such aspects would include recognizing the large number of excellent, ancient copies supporting the original text as composed by the New Testament authors.47 As mentioned already, contemporary skeptical scholars almost unanimously recognize seven of Paul’s Epistles as “undisputed”48 or as “generally accepted as genuine without doubt.”49 As such, skeptical scholars allow that these critical Pauline Epistles may be cited freely in discussions,50 not as inspired documents but nonetheless as authoritative, honest, good reports and descriptions of early Christian beliefs and practices written by an ancient scholar who was there and who knew personally many of the original eyewitnesses.51 In fact, Ehrman acknowledges that Paul knew and conversed with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John as one of the “Two Key Data for the Historicity of Jesus.” Then Ehrman asks quite surprisingly, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”52 This is an amazing question!

How Strong Is the General Reliability Argument?

The purpose here is definitely not to condemn or even to severely criticize such reliability approaches, especially if they are constructed carefully. Volumes of worthwhile research have appeared in these attempts, and the exploration should definitely continue. The author has also argued in several of these directions on different occasions, though not always in the more regular ways that this is often done.53 Again, these efforts can be very positive. Some strong arguments have emerged from studying the general reliability of the New Testament texts and their sources in relation to other ancient religious and historical texts.54 But in spite of the popularity and importance of these sorts of methods, we also must proceed very carefully too. It appears that, in some instances, this approach can fail to bear all of the weight that is sometimes placed on such a foundation. At the very least we need to avoid some potential and common hazards.

The chief concern regards how these arguments are commonly employed, as well as what conclusions are often drawn from the data. Some authors might proceed from the conclusion of general textual reliability to particular, often major, theological conclusions. Thus, after the initial conclusion is reached concerning particular indications that certain authors or texts are trustworthy writings, the researcher may move immediately to several central Christian beliefs. Regularly it is postulated that since the New Testament texts are reliable, we may now make a case for what these documents reveal regarding doctrines such as the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus’s miracles, salvation, or even the resurrection of Jesus. It is then concluded that this path is sufficient to indicate these doctrines should be taken at face value as established truths.55

How strong is the argument that, given certain levels of general textual reliability, the historicity of particular historical events and teachings of specific doctrines actually occurred? In short, could the overall, largely historical reliability of the New Testament texts yield the major beliefs of Christian theism? In this common approach, much of the detailed work is done at the outset, with the resultant conclusions filtering down to substantiate both regular and miraculous events as well as major doctrines.

Of course, this methodology has been challenged by critics, and on more than one ground. For example, more radical scholars assert that the data for reliability itself, such as the case above for the Gospel of Mark, should be contested, contending that counterarguments exist. More moderate critics might argue that while much of the data produced by this method might indeed be true, the overall conclusion that the New Testament as a whole is reliable is simply too broad and does not follow.

Another frequent challenge to the argument for textual reliability occurs in debates where the critic attempts to produce a list of shortcomings in Scripture. While New Testament scholars have often done quite admiral jobs of responding to such issues, the length of these lists can be overwhelming, given normal time and space allotments. While it can always be responded that such tactics are unfair or beyond the proper bounds of present constraints, even producing answers can sidetrack a discussion until it deviates from the main issue being discussed. The sheer number of necessary details needed to answer such questions can bog down a discussion severely. Further, to readers or audience members, it often appears that the critic has scored some crucial points simply from the number of questions raised.

Incidentally, this critical debate or dialogue strategy can often be reversed in more than one way as well. For instance, an entire list of major challenges can be posed to the skeptic as well—specially designed as equally unanswerable within brief time allotments! This entire subject calls for exceptionally careful debate parameters to be set beforehand over very specific content agreed upon by all participants and made known to the moderator.56

Still, it seems that the most important potential challenge to this entire procedure is that general reliability arguments may even be incapable of producing the necessary basis for the strong arguments required to establish some of the supernatural claims in Scripture. The central issue may be this: just because a publication is generally reliable, it does not necessarily follow that everything in it is automatically true. “Generally reliable” means exactly what it claims—that in most instances, this source is sufficient to answer the questions. But even normal, everyday occurrences in largely trustworthy volumes could be mistaken. If that is the case, then what about any supernatural claims that may also be recorded there? It would quite obviously involve and even require much more cautious treading here, not to mention specific evidence, to establish particular miracle claims. Would a Christian accept the historicity of an incredible non-Christian miraculous declaration mentioned in the pages of an acknowledged, reputable volume published by a superior scholarly press?

The chief problem is that a generally reliable book does not even necessarily or automatically ensure every report between its covers. Think of it this way: our best libraries are filled with huge numbers of generally trustworthy historical volumes. Still, we often do not hesitate to challenge specific issues or claims here and there in these otherwise satisfactory texts. As the art of reviewing books regularly reveals, specialists will definitely challenge this or that report within a writing while still proclaiming that this is the best, most informative, or even the most accurate textbook around.

Test Cases from Greco-Roman History

Now, if this is true of normal, everyday history books, what happens when these volumes include reports of miracles? A test case might be helpful. When studying ancient Greco-Roman history, it becomes obvious that virtually all of these ancient authors recorded various miracles and other supernatural occurrences, such as healings, prophecies, omens, portents, and the like.57 Presumably, when such supernatural claims are then used as the basis for insuring the truth of an entire anti-Christian belief system like polytheism or emperor worship, Christians may be the first ones to point out that these claims do not follow. As a matter of fact, when reading accounts of Greco-Roman miracles, Christians might even read right past these accounts, not even slowing down to consider whether or not the miraculous element could possibly be true. But why not, if the ancient historian is a generally trustworthy source?

Now let us complicate the matter a little further. Perhaps it is not simply an either-or case regarding such events. The “supernatural” occurrences in question may not have occurred at all. Then again, they could have happened too. In any of these cases, the author’s religious beliefs could simply have been tacked on to a truly historical nucleus. So, far from being a minor point in the overall equation, if we fail to employ some skeptical distinctions here, believers and nonbelievers alike could be faced with some severe problems.

Nonetheless, Christians often respond in reverse when they think that critics are not giving biblical miracles a fair chance. “Just look at all of the evidence,” believers plead. But while some may simply be cautious regarding such Greco-Roman claims, it may be more accurate to guess that the majority of Christians would reject these events outright. So why do believers largely seem to employ the same methods that they dislike by denying or ignoring the miracle claims in other religious traditions, usually without being open to such reports, while pleading for openness toward their own cases?

To illustrate the major point here, we could examine some instances from two Roman historians who wrote just a decade or two after the completion of the New Testament. Tacitus has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, and we are told that he “never consciously sacrifices historical truth.”58 But in the Annals, Tacitus reports many instances of, or at least made allowances for, the work of fate (Ann. 1.55), the interplay of supernatural omens (1.28; 12.43; 14.22), and the divinity of some of the Caesars (1.19, 42). Tacitus also notes the worship of both the gods and the Caesars (1.11).59

Supernatural occurrences are far more common in the work of the Roman historian Suetonius, who is described as being “trustworthy enough.”60 Five of the twelve Caesars that Suetonius depicts in his major history (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, and Titus) are said to have been divinized apropos to the belief in emperor worship. Further, Suetonius was well known for frequently relating various sorts of omens,61 the worship of the gods,62 and other religious beliefs.63

Suetonius also narrates more miraculous or supernatural events in The Twelve Caesars than Tacitus, some of which might disturb Christians. These include the apotheosis of Julius Caesar’s soul into the heavens after his death, as the appearance of a comet was taken to be the emperor(!) (Jul. 88).64 Suetonius also repeats an account from a book by Asclepias of Mendes, which taught that Augustus’s mother experienced a strange encounter with a snake at the Temple of Apollo, afterwards conceiving Augustus apart from her husband (Aug. 94). Later, while he was with a group of senators, a former praetor reported that he saw Augustus’s spirit ascending through the flames of his cremated body after death, though apparently no one else saw anything (Aug. 100). Other supernatural signs include predictions of the future that were later fulfilled,65 as well as dreams and other actions caused by the gods or supernatural agents.66

So once again, how might a Christian respond to major supernatural reports like a conception apart from a man or the apotheosis of the spirit of Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus reported by a generally trustworthy Roman historian? Does it emphasize the question at hand here when these Roman scholars are frequently deemed by Christian apologists to be reliable enough witnesses when they confirm New Testament matters? Even so, it may be fair to say that it would almost surely still be concluded by most Christians without much fanfare that especially Suetonius’s miracle reports are simply false. Likely, this would be the verdict even with little or no evidence against the Roman writer. But on what grounds can such a conclusion be fairly delineated?

One promising pathway here might be to assert what perhaps many conservative and more moderate scholars noted above might also retort. Namely, a large contingent of these researchers agree that the New Testament writings were largely written by, under the general control of, or made good use of eyewitness sources and testimony. The New Testament texts were also written fairly early and contain a number of elements that date to exceptionally soon after the teachings and events in view. Even though our earlier lineup of scholars was admittedly brief, this approach could feature some good arguments and turn out favorably. Can we challenge Suetonius or Tacitus on the same grounds regarding their supernatural claims?

This critique could be significant. If we inquire into the time between the Roman writings and some of the occurrences they describe, we find on many occasions that there were some significant problems with the state of their testimony. A major instance comes from another noteworthy Roman historian, Livy, who discusses the founding of Rome by the brothers Romulus and Remus.67 The reported material is not only rather supernatural in nature, but it supposedly occurred literally hundreds of years before the historian’s time. Suetonius’s two mentions of apotheosis and Augustus’s insinuation of a virgin birth are also dated a significant number of years earlier than the historical records. Both Julius Caesar’s death and Augustus’s birth precede Suetonius’s work by more than a century and a half. Augustus’s death occurred over a hundred years before Suetonius first wrote. Given that these supernatural accounts may be the most fantastic Roman claims, the substantial time gap in each case is certainly significant.68

Here we are greeted with another potentially major consideration: both Tacitus and Suetonius wrote approximately AD 112 to 120, or some eighty to ninety years after the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a significantly later time frame than the Gospel of John is usually dated. Could the previous Christian traditions have inspired any of the similarities for Suetonius’s remarks about Augustus’s strange conception or the two reports of apotheosis? From his apparent comments about Jesus and early Christians, Suetonius knew at least some items about Christian beliefs. After all, if Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar were later divinized, as Suetonius relates, and lived within the same empire as Jesus of Nazareth, would it not make sense for divine Roman emperors to surpass a lowly Jewish messiah?

Even more so, what about the fact that these Roman authors apparently agree that Christian teachings broke out anew after Jesus died, especially while reports were still circulating of a resurrected Savior as witnessed by the earliest Christian believers?69 Of course, we cannot be sure and can only offer these conjectures here. But the clear fact that this later Roman duo wrote almost a century after the birth of Christianity might just be a good reason for them to speak in this way about their own empire’s religious beliefs. If it were the other way around and the Roman sources were far earlier, what would critical scholars be telling us about the New Testament accounts?

Let us put the larger problem of the time gap between our two main Roman historians and their major miracle claims in some comparative perspective. For example, if the major Gospel accounts of Jesus’s birth, significant teachings, death by crucifixion, and his reported resurrection appearances were all dated at least 80 to 90 years after our earliest sources, skeptics would no doubt rejoice gleefully! After all, critical scholars have long criticized the Gospel of John for being written some 65 years after the crucifixion, although Tacitus and Suetonius wrote about the first two Caesars approximately 100 to 160 years after their deaths! The distance from the death of Julius Caesar to these Roman historians is more than double the distance from Jesus’s crucifixion to the composition of John.70

So while the time gaps and other similar concerns are certainly weighty issues and ripe for comparison to the Gospels, this will not totally solve the issues by themselves, especially with each of the Gospel traditions including more religious contexts. Yet, even a majority of New Testament scholars might potentially counter with the more recent emphasis on the Gospels being considered examples of Greco-Roman bios.71

However, both Tacitus and Suetonius were temporally closer to an intriguing case involving another Caesar than any of the Gospels except Mark were to Jesus’s ministry (according to critical dating). This example, recorded by both Roman historians, is that two men in Alexandria came to Emperor Vespasian for healing. According to Suetonius, one man was blind and the other one was lame, and “apparently the god Serapis had promised them in a dream” that they would be healed. However, expounds Suetonius, Vespasian “had so little faith in his curative powers that he showed great reluctance in doing what he was asked.” Still, he healed both of them, in the first case by spitting in the blind man’s eyes. He performed these actions “in the presence of a large audience” (Ves. 7). This report occurred only about forty-five years before Suetonius wrote.

According to Tacitus, the first man was indeed blind and asked Vespasian to use spit on his eyes, but the second was said to have a diseased hand instead of being lame.72 Intriguingly, we are told that at first Vespasian “ridiculed and repulsed them.” Further, Tacitus then relates that physicians were consulted, who replied that the men “were within the reach of human skill,” for the first man was not totally blind and the second could perhaps be restored by some “healing influence.” But perhaps Vespasian could help them by “divine will.” Consequently, Vespasian healed both of them before a crowd who reportedly had no reason to lie (Ann. 4.81).

Moreover, both Tacitus and Suetonius had superb opportunities to check out and confirm their historical data. Tacitus held administrative posts in the Roman government and consulted crucial sources such as memoirs, biographies, and even official Roman records. He states that he was personally promoted by three Caesars—Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian (Ann. 1:1). Hadas affirms that, given ancient standards of historiography, Tacitus was a responsible scholar.73

On the other hand, Suetonius served personally as the foremost secretary to Emperor Hadrian and had access to the official imperial and senatorial records. Additionally, he received much of his information on several of the Caesars directly from eyewitnesses.74 Suetonius sometimes notes that he examined other material to secure his information (Jul. 87; Cal. 58). On occasion, he even lists or cites the sources he checked.75

Suetonius’s use of other information in this instance might even be likened to the comment in Luke 1:1–4 regarding checking out various resources to gain information. At any rate, it must be admitted that data such as these on behalf of the historical writings of Roman scholars Tacitus and Suetonius would be welcomed by apologists if these scholars could report a similar line of support in addition to what was already possessed from the New Testament authors.

Since miraculous claims still appear in these Roman historians’ writings even when they seemed to have some clear and early access to the material they were reporting, it would therefore appear that these items cannot always be dismissed strictly due to the time gap between these authors and their sources. However, the lengthy period would seem to address quite well the reports of apotheosis and the allegedly fatherless conception of Augustus. Further, even beyond the time aspect alone, such criticism in these latter cases is also due to the reported nature of the occurrences themselves with the definite lack of more direct attesting evidence on behalf of these specific claims, plus the potential similarities with earlier Christian reports. So how might a response be made to Tacitus and Suetonius regarding the Vespasian healing cases that boast the earlier time gaps along with some at least claimed corroboration?

Critiquing the Roman Cases

One useful retort could be to inquire concerning the extent to which it might be ascertained that it was precisely at those points that Suetonius and Tacitus had good evidence for their supernatural claims. In other words, beyond the general historical backdrop for these historical writings, it should rightly be inquired as to the specific historical evidence that those particular Roman miracles had actually occurred. After all, skeptics can and do ask Christians for exactly the same data, and far more specifically as well.

But now we have arrived at what may be the crux of the issue pertaining to textual trustworthiness and miracle claims. If Christians cast their nets too widely and are satisfied to settle for general indications that the New Testament is reliable in order to move to Jesus’s miracles, then they may be too hard pressed to address the question concerning why a similar strategy might not work for the best cases where the Roman historians also record miracles within approximately the same time distance as some of the Gospel information. But there is a worse problem here. Presumably for most scholars, even this decent parameter of research for ancient historians who have recorded everyday events within a good time window would be insufficient to clear the bar to convince them in supernatural cases where miracle claims are being made.

But if we require that specific evidential details be provided in favor of particular Roman miracle accounts, which would seem necessary to even get us started for such supernatural claims, now Christians may have backed themselves firmly into a corner, that is, unless believers are also willing to provide specific historical backup for similar claims regarding, say, the miracles of Jesus’s to which the Gospel accounts testify. It would appear that, in either case, arguments for the general reliability of the text simply do not take us to the heart of the precise issues. This is especially so in the case of miracle claims, which are often thought to require much more data, let alone even for fairly mundane events concerning which we would simply like factual assurance.

Yet, judging from the way they develop their arguments, many conservative authors seem satisfied to leave the issue right here. They often think that after they have successfully shown several reasons why the New Testament text is generally trustworthy, they basically only need now to unpack what the text asserts, both concerning extraordinary events as well as theological doctrines. When these are uncovered, they may assume that the goal has been reached.76

But as mentioned above, this move is often simply ignored when ancient secular writers have conducted similar levels of research. But as much as this practice may appear to be either prejudicial or just due to plain oversight, both sides need much more historical spadework to accomplish these goals. For example, if an archaeological discovery provides some backup for a place or event, it could confirm that an ancient report may be at least partially correct. But how would such a find indicate that something else from this same source was likewise true, that the event was perhaps actually an act of God, or that a theological teaching followed from it?

Once again, this problem is further aggravated when we recall a common notion among Christian scholars that both Tacitus and Suetonius are trustworthy historians who provide some assistance in determining the reliability of the New Testament! So the main issue here is that these Roman writers are apparently trustworthy enough to help us make our claims, which may even extend to our miracle claims, but we basically do not think that this trustworthiness extends to their miracle claims! If we are not careful here, this may sound more and more just like special pleading.

However, before we get too far from the Roman accounts, perhaps it is time to make several critical remarks. We need to consider the following concerns regarding these two ancient texts. First,Vespasian had no ancestral, marital, or political claims to being in line as the next emperor of Rome. As such, “his healing miracles became a key part of his campaign.”77 These occurrences, whether true or false, thus take on a wholly different perspective. In fact, Tacitus explains that Vespasian at first feared some sort of “set-up” here (Ann. 4.82).

Second, we learn the most about Vespasian from the historians Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. The last three record these healing events in roughly similar accounts, as we have seen briefly. But in spite of Josephus being the earliest writer of the four, plus his close personal relation to Vespasian including his very lofty comments concerning him fulfilling Jewish prophecy,78 Josephus does not record these Alexandrian healing events. This does not rule out these events in themselves, for this would smack of an argument from silence. But there are worthwhile considerations here in light of Josephus’s date, personal familiarity with the Flavians, and willingness to ascribe Jewish prophecy to Vespasian.

Third, it has been suggested that there is marked similarity between Vespasian’s healing and Jesus’s miracles in the Gospels, especially Jesus healing a blind man by using spittle on his eyes (John 9:1–7). This might produce some additional pause.

Fourth, we saw that the Roman physicians reported that the men could be treated by physical means and that the first man was not totally blind. Regardless, physical healings are well attested and are often affected by cognitive means, so they do not necessitate supernatural events.79 Regardless, several extenuating considerations here should at the very least make us cautious.

So we have suggested several approaches to the supernatural claims made by Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius, depending on the type of challenge that is offered. Concerning such beliefs as the deification of certain Roman emperors or their records of supernatural occurrences like apotheosis or healing, most of the rather stupendous claims in these texts were written far too long after the original events to be of much value.

On the other hand, the minimal facts argument will differentiate far more significantly the two sorts of claims between the New Testament data and the Roman histories. For events such as Jesus’s resurrection, for example, we will construct in this study a very specialized and strong case, including data from much closer to the events in question plus abundant and varied historical evidence even allowed by critical scholars.

Regarding the Roman texts, virtually no specific evidence favors the reports of supernatural events like the healing claims of Vespasian in the examples of the two men from Alexandria. True, there are multiple accounts with the comment that other persons were present. But as we just mentioned briefly, Vespasian stood to gain from such occurrences in a major way, since these events apparently served as one of the bases for his political campaign to be the Roman emperor. Moreover, the similarity to the earlier New Testament miracle claims of Jesus, as well as the plain fact that healing events can actually occur without any supernatural intervention at all, leave these accounts without any real differentiation from the individual arguments for the New Testament data.

In short, there are no specific data here on which to construct an historical argument that can ground the Roman religious worldview. The quality of the different sorts of accounts is quite apparent.80 So most significantly, we are back where we were before: at the need to examine the evidence that could potentially favor miracle claims. Yet the traditional apologetic approach, based on general reliability, often provides less of a basis for either a critique of the Roman cases or a defense of Jesus’s healing events.

However, what if critics simply retorted that all miracle claims, especially from the ancient world, are false regardless of what support they may have?81 While we may understand the interest in further evidence, the claim that there can never be enough information smacks of some a priori prejudice. How does anyone know that miracles can never occur?

Beyond this, interestingly, our next answer is similar to that for the last question concerning Vespasian’s healing miracles. We do need standards of evidence and to clearly ascertain which claims may just possibly make the grade. Again, this is precisely where the minimal facts method excels.

Lastly, several other options, in whole or in part, may apply here. As we just pointed out in the case of Vespasian, it is important to remember that Christians do not necessarily have to disprove all other miracle claims.82 This is a false dilemma. As both Testaments point out, God helped and healed many unbelievers, and never in the Gospels does Jesus ever give someone a theology exam or inquire what they believed before healing them! Additionally, other miracle claims, such as physical healing in particular, can sometimes be real events without necessarily being supernatural. Further, godly power was not the only species of supernatural strength that manifested itself during biblical times. Lastly, some events in question may be real, natural events falsely interpreted as miracles.

What if the critical scholar grants some decent arguments for the reliability of the New Testament text (though most of them will not do so) while still rejecting most of the supernatural claims? Or what if she asserts that general reliability and establishing supernatural claims are like mixing apples and oranges, so that the former is insufficient to establish the latter? Will believers conclude that she is being overly critical in requiring them to produce specific evidence for our events and doctrines, just as we required of the Roman authors? Or could skeptics think that these or other supernatural events or teachings were interjected at some later time into an otherwise decent tradition?

The chief point here is that, while perhaps conceding a few arguments, many critical scholars will almost surely argue that we still have an insufficient basis for the text’s actual supernatural claims.83 Conservatives usually conclude that the critics are mistaken, but it should be remembered that they probably challenge the supernatural claims made by Roman historians on roughly the same grounds! Even worse, many believers would presumably just respond that the Roman miracle reports are simply erroneous and leave it at that!

It is at precisely this point that the minimal facts method may come to the rescue. We have just summarized the presence of some intriguing questions regarding Vespasian’s miracle reports, such as their “convenience” in his quest to become Roman emperor in the absence of his possessing the normal credentials, Josephus’s potential lack of knowledge of these events in spite of his relation to Vespasian’s family, their similarity to Gospel miracle claims, and the somewhat ambivalent medical evaluation by the local physicians. Yet, we will argue in this study that Jesus’s miracle claims in general, and his resurrection in particular, are grounded far better in factual terms than are the Greco-Roman claims by ancient historians. We will simply have to ascertain later which, if any, such miracle claims come close to the necessary data.84

Minimal Facts and General Reliability Arguments in Tandem

The special strength of the minimal facts method, as clarified above, is its ability to zero in on textual minutiae and provide many valuable, specialized arguments for historicity. Of its two major criteria, the first is certainly more crucial. Multiple evidences may come from disciplines beyond history. They build from the ground up, often establishing one historical fact at a time. The second criterion is that the vast majority of critical scholars agree that the event is historical. Of course, even scholars could be mistaken, or the academic climate could change at any time, or scholars could also dispute the particulars. Still, while less crucial than the earlier evidential step, the result is an exceptionally helpful methodological procedure that builds on the commonly held foundation that recognizes the presence of strong evidence. The central thrust of the minimal facts method is to argue wherever possible on more limited grounds for the purpose of establishing an exceptionally firm, factual argument as well as challenging a broader spectrum of thinkers.

As will be observed as we move along, it is even a methodology quite often preferred by the critical scholars themselves, in that most who study the subject acknowledge the data.85 On the other hand, the distinctive contribution of the general reliability argument is in providing an overall, wide-ranging backdrop in favor of a large body of data. It moves from the top down and provides a more complete textual panorama. Though the broader reliability approach has without much doubt been the most popular method in past studies of this topic, it was remarked above that Lydia McGrew, a critic of the minimal facts method, still asserts that it now enjoys “near-exclusive use in Christian apologetic circles.”86 Both may be pursued together and can complement each other.

The minimal facts method is a far superior species of research that majors in providing evidence in minute studies. It supplies a stronger and tighter case that emphasizes producing a variety of factual angles all arguing for fewer historical events, as well as attracting the recognition and agreement of the vast majority of critical scholars. Such near unanimity testifies to the powerful foundation behind this historical framework. It is also superior in answering more sophisticated objections. As with the test cases that we just pursued above, this method is much more suited to indicating how the case for New Testament events may actually be superior to the Roman historical examples of miracle claims that we just studied. But there may be other occasions when it is additionally advantageous to return periodically in an effort to reexamine the basic background upon which the more specialized studies may be based.

Summary and Conclusion

We have argued that the problem with cases based on the general reliability of Scripture is not that these are illegitimate or always unhelpful. The chief issue is that it is very difficult to make them bear the weight of specific evidential arguments. Further, one result is the backlash against the believer when non-Christian miracle claims are viewed according to the same general criteria.

Thus, it has been proposed that we either amend the reliability arguments or just use outright what we have termed the minimal facts argument. It builds on multiply evidenced facts accepted as historical by virtually all critical scholars and thus it has the chief advantage of offering very specific evidence for particular events and doctrines. The large percentage of critical scholars who agree also make this a much more useful option.

In closing this preliminary look at the minimal facts method, it should be carefully noted that the reliability and even the inspiration of Scripture are still crucially important in an overall case for Christian theism and especially in building theology. There are places where these truths are very helpful and even necessary.87 Thus, arguments for Scripture are far from illegitimate, expendable, or useless. It is also the case that there are strong responses to critical objections to the biblical texts. But we should utilize the best arguments, especially on subjects of central concern, such as the Gospel reports. They were central in the earliest church and it remains so today. That is precisely where the minimal facts argument is at its very strongest and makes its most impact. Making use of the most powerful arguments will develop the most forceful case directly at these crucial points. As far as I am concerned, the minimal facts method is more robust, harder-hitting, and far more specific than the traditional approach, and therefore it is preferable. That the general reliability method fails at certain critical points helps to indicate that the minimal facts approach can even be more powerful.

Notes

1 This time frame extended from the prior research that led to my PhD dissertation, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1976), esp. chaps. 13–14, to the present. This dissertation along with a 2021 update on resurrection scholarship since 1976 has recently appeared as Gary R. Habermas, Risen Indeed: A Historical Investigation into the Resurrection of Jesus (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2021). This update contains a brief explanation of my pre-dissertation research on what became the minimal facts method. Cf. also the comments in W. David Beck and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Gary R. Habermas: A Minimal Facts Ministry for Disciples and Doubters,” in The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction, ed. Benjamin K. Forrest, Joshua D. Chatraw, and Alister McGrath (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 772n15 in particular.

2 For this topic in light of a comparison to Michael Licona’s methodological approach to the resurrection, including caveats on questions such as the possibility of expanding the list of minimal facts, see Gary R. Habermas, “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity,” Southeastern Theological Review 3 (2012): 15–26, as well as Licona’s response to me in the same journal, “In Reply to Habermas, McGrew, and McCullagh,” esp. 55–56. We have also addressed this subject together, such as Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), see 43–77. For Licona’s major work on this subject, see Resurrection of Jesus, particularly 277–464 (see chap. 2, n. 13). That volume is a revised and updated version of his PhD dissertation at the University of Pretoria, South Africa (22). A number of other Habermas sources on this methodology appear in this chapter and elsewhere in this study.

3 The discussion here concerns specialized scholars who have researched relevant areas in this discussion, rather than other scholars outside these particular fields of research or simply anyone who writes or blogs on these subjects. Below I will define this first group more clearly, since it is the group of researchers with which we are most concerned throughout this study.

4 Some additional examples of these ideas can be found in my publications The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 22–41; Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus: Historical Records of His Death and Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), 124–34; with Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 19–27, 42–46, 155–58 (see chap. 1, n. 68); Historical Jesus, 152–70 (see chap. 3, n. 48); “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2 (2005): 135–53; “Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 45, no. 3 (2006): 288–97; “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts,” in God Is Great, God Is Good: Why Believing in God Is Reasonable and Responsible, ed. William Lane Craig and Craig Meister (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 202–16; “Remembering Jesus’ Resurrection: Responding to James D. G. Dunn,” in Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered, ed. Robert B. Stewart and Gary Habermas (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 267–85; “Jesus Did Rise from the Dead,” in Debating Christian Theism, ed. J. P. Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 471–83; Evidence for the Historical Jesus: Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith? (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2020).

5 Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist Dialogue, ed. John F. Ankerberg (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), 1–7. As indicated in the title of the volume, Flew was still an atheist when this discussion occurred.

6 A few instances of my emphasizing such qualifications on this second point, even in my earlier works, include Habermas, Resurrection of Jesus, 33, 38; Ancient Evidence, 133–34; Historical Jesus, 169–70, 269.

7 Besides, if the ideas of Thomas Kuhn and other like-minded theses are correct, paradigm shifts in thinking often occur for reasons other than the discovery of new information, or in spite of being unable to fully answer all the contrary data in a satisfactory manner; see Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 147–48, cf. 205 (see chap. 3, n. 5). Strangely enough, even C. S. Lewis, in one of his more technical volumes that delineated literary indications of various thinking shifts from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, argued that worldview changes often occur without reference to the discoveries of new facts, but instead due to an attitude change or one simply growing tired of old expressions and desiring new ones! See C. S. Lewis, Discarded Image, 220–23 and especially the epilogue (see chap. 1, n. 7). If such ideas and other related ones are correct, the potential upshot of this is that rejections of ideological positions, even by scholars, are quite often based on anything but the state of the data. From another influential perspective, many studies have argued that religious doubt may arise from a variety of factors that are largely unrelated to the current state of the evidence, such as one’s emotions. For just one example, cf. Neil Krause and Keith M. Wulff, “Religious Doubt and Health: Exploring the Potential Dark Side of Religion,” Sociology of Religion 65 (2004): 35–56. Then why should we even employ the second criterion regarding the large amount of critical agreement of scholarship? To get back to the original point of the minimal facts argument, the first criterion concerning the evidence is indeed the key to historicity. But the less crucial second criterion concerning the large percentage of agreement among scholars on the events we will raise may still allow many worthwhile benefits, such as a certain amount of agreement when conversing about the current state of the research, where the best evidence lies, what practical or other results can be derived from these conclusions, and so on. A large percentage of scholarly agreement on the historical status of the key queries helps to further the discussion more quickly, often cutting through many potential roadblocks, although it neither decides nor settles the factual or truth questions. Many individuals simply do not have the time or inclination to study the research personally, so it can be helpful to obtain a sort of overview or “lay of the land,” realizing that credible scholars have done such research and arrived at these conclusions. Yet again, the facts themselves are not solved by scholarly head counts.

8 My earliest publications sometimes termed this shorter list the “core facts,” but I settled soon afterwards on the designation of “minimal facts,” which is a bit more descriptive.

9 Both lists are provided in the next chapter and discussed in the context of contemporary scholarship.

10 One example here might be that of Dale Allison, at least as taken from a response of years ago. While referring specifically to my research, Dale referred to my survey of recent resurrection scholarship that was published in the pages of the same journal issue by averring that he was “incurably incurious” regarding scholarly surveys and the like, while still acknowledging that there could be some benefits to such exercises; see Allison, “Explaining the Resurrection: Conflicting Convictions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 125. Since that time, both an oral and a written dialogue on the subject, along with some friendly discussions between us, may have moved us closer in some respects on various of these relevant questions. Such is also a reminder of how two-way, understanding communication can also prove valuable in these exchanges!

11 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 358 (see chap. 2, n. 15). Quite surprisingly, Richard Carrier notes that his naturalistic approach “is consistent with all but one” of my list of twelve historical facts, with the exception being the empty tomb. Carrier’s essay is “The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 197.

12 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 357–58. It should be noted here that this latest volume by Allison appeared in print at the same time that the current volume was being edited, so while references to Allison’s important new work will be made whenever possible during this process, large-scale interaction will not be possible in the first volume of this series.

13 For example, that is why the second volume of this set is committed to discussing naturalistic and other objections.

14 For instance, though she considers the minimal facts method to be deficient, Lydia McGrew still attests that it enjoys “near-exclusive use in Christian apologetic circles.” See McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017), 220–21.

15 Licona’s illustration here concerns the contrasting estimates from Raymond Brown, N. T. Wright, Ben Witherington, and others pertaining to current estimates on the authorship of Colossians. See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 278–79.

16 In terms of our study here, there are many well-known examples of both surveys and overviews which include statements here and there on the scholarly lay of the land. Among these works are the following: Albert Schweitzer’s famous volume The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery from the first German edition in 1906 (New York: Macmillan, 1968); Karl Barth, Protestant Thought from Rousseau to Ritschl, trans. H. H. Hartwell, rev. ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969); and Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). A few other surveys among many other possible examples include Albert C. Knudson, Present Tendencies in Religious Thought (New York: Abingdon, 1924); G. C. Berkouwer, A Half Century of Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); John K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity International, 1993); plus Gerald O’Collins’s small volumes, such as What Are They Saying about Jesus? (New York: Paulist, 1977) and What Are They Saying about the Resurrection? (New York: Paulist, 1978).

17 Some examples from my own work include “Resurrection Research”; “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions,” in The Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Robert Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 78–92; “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Trinity Journal 22 (2001): 179–96; and the older but still useful “Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic (Part I),” Criswell Theological Review 4 (1989): 159–74; “Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic (Part II),” Criswell Theological Review 4 (1990): 373–85.

18 Quite intriguingly, this and related questions were debated in the pages of volume 9 of the much-respected Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus in 2011. Interested readers may consult this particular dialogue and the various stances that were taken, all from the pages of that issue of the journal, with authors listed alphabetically: Darrell L. Bock, “A Brief Reply to Robert Miller and Amy-Jill Levine,” 107–11; Bock, “Faith and the Historical Jesus: Does a Confessional Position and Respect for the Jesus Tradition Preclude Serious Historical Engagement?,” 3–25; Craig S. Keener, “A Brief Reply to Robert Miller and Amy-Jill Levine,” 112–17; Keener, “Assumptions in Historical-Jesus Research: Using Ancient Biographies and Disciples’ Traditioning as a Control,” 26–58; Amy-Jill Levine, “Christian Faith and the Study of the Historical Jesus: A Response to Bock, Keener, and Webb,” 96–106; Robert J. Miller, “When It’s Futile to Argue about the Historical Jesus: A Response to Bock, Keener, and Webb,” 85–95; Mark Allan Powell, “Editorial Foreword,” 1–2; Powell, “Evangelical Christians and Historical-Jesus Studies: Final Reflections,” 124–36; Robert L. Webb, “Methodological Naturalism: Engaging the Responses of Robert J. Miller and Amy-Jill Levine,” 118–23; Webb, “The Rules of the Game: History and Historical Method in the Context of Faith: The Via Media of Methodological Naturalism,” 59–84. A later, related response in the same journal was Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “What’s Good for the Goose Is Good for the Gander: Historiography and the Historical Jesus,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2017): 291–309.

19 On this last point, see atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman’s comments in “Did Jesus Exist?,” Huffington Post, March 20, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html. Ehrman quite straightforwardly states this stinging comment: “Of the hundreds—thousands?—of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have PhD credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.” Incidentally, Ehrman’s requirements here for consideration as a “scholar” seem to be very similar to the sort that I just outlined above.

20 Ben went on to complete his own PhD in the philosophy of history, focusing on the question of whether historians qua historians could at least potentially recognize whether Jesus was seen again after his death by crucifixion, in whatever form, without all the theological trappings.

21 It should also be mentioned that, especially toward the end of the research process, a number of earlier research assistants were also exceptionally helpful, especially in gathering bibliographic sources, but also in the overall project. Besides their grading responsibilities, Joel Oates, Jason Hauffe (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary), and Sean Turchin (PhD, Edinburgh University) read dozens of books and journal articles, making careful notes. David Pensgard (PhD, Catholic University of America) kept up my website with much of this material. Ronnie Campbell (PhD, Liberty University) added crucial data from my notes as well as charted much of it in a very practical spreadsheet. He has since published a number of books with major publishers. Ben Shaw has also gone on to edit a book and author or coauthor well over a dozen articles. Campbell did much work on the question of miracles as well as the resurrection, and Shaw now specializes in this same field.

22 These very critical emphases should be kept in mind amid complaints that will no doubt arise from those who object to more conservative voices also being included in the counts. Volume 2 of this study is presently projected as being chiefly occupied with these naturalistic and other very critical ideations.

23 Besides Ehrman’s biting comments above, more rather intriguing examples are contained in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., The Historical Jesus: Five Views. In spite of Robert M. Price being one of very few mythicists with excellent academic credentials, after he explained his position against the historical Jesus, exceptionally influential critical scholars John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, and James D. G. Dunn all make some very strong comments in this volume about both Price and his position. Johnson states concerning Price’s position, “It does lack the capacity to convince any but those who despair of history altogether” (93). Dunn offers still stronger language: “Gosh! So there are still serious scholars who put forward the view [of the mythical Jesus]. . . . But, no! Robert Price raises the banner once again” (94). Further, all three of these critical scholars agree on the next step as well, claiming that there is more than ample positive historical evidence to both indicate Jesus’s existence as well as to disprove Price’s position on the nonexistence (or virtually so) of Jesus (Crossan, 85–86; Johnson, 89, 159–61; and Dunn, 94–96, 98, 221, 223).

24 Strangely enough, despite bending over backward to include so many radical writers who do not possess the indicated scholarly credentials, I have received frequent emails plus other notes over the years complaining that either the skeptics as a whole had probably been ignored or at least neglected simply to make the positive numbers look better! These kinds of responses seemed often to be accompanied by anger or to border on some species of conspiracy theory. It would be understandable if these often emotional responses frequently make more moderate researchers want to drop the entire noncredentialed group altogether! It is no fault of scholarship if, even after counting many of their major writings in the tallies, the research still did not favor either the mythicists or their theories! As somewhat of a case in point, in a polite debate between long-time atheist Carl Stecher and evangelical New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, Stecher acknowledges the hostility of some atheists (51) and refers to “modern, so-called aggressive atheists” (100). See Stecher and Blomberg, Resurrection: Faith or Fact? A Scholar’s Debate between a Skeptic and a Christian (Durham, NC: Pitchstone, 2019).

25 Cf. as an example, Gary R. Habermas, “Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses,” 179–96.

26 As explained elsewhere so that the purpose and extent of this study are clear, no claim has been made that an exhaustive study was conducted of all resurrection sources from 1975 to date. The research figures began with and largely reflected the most representative and highly influential sources no matter what view was taken, especially those that were written by major scholars. A large number of these have been cataloged in all their significant, exhausting details. Other texts were surveyed more briefly but still in detail. Less extensive publications were simply noted or otherwise listed in the ongoing bibliography. Furthermore, many of the included sources are not exclusively or even predominantly on the subjects of Jesus’s death or resurrection but may simply have contained a chapter or a smaller discussion on an important subaspect of one of the many study areas represented in this large study. As for relevant sources, they are listed in the bibliography too. This large collection of total sources accounts for why it seems that my lifelong study of the resurrection is always ongoing!

27 This entire document is projected for the third volume of this series.

28 For some instances where aspects of this research have been included, see esp. my essays “Mapping the Recent Trend,” 78–92, 199–204; Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chap. 1 (see chap. 2, n. 33); “The Resurrection of Jesus Time Line,” in Contending with Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors, ed. Paul Copan and William Lane Craig (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 113–25; “Resurrection Research,” 135–53; “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 288–97; “Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence,” 179–96; with Licona, Case for the Resurrection, chiefly chaps. 3–4; “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection,” esp. 212–15; “Remembering Jesus’ Resurrection,” 272–85 in particular; “Jesus Did Rise from the Dead,” notably 472–83; Philosophy of History, Miracles, and the Resurrection of Jesus, 3rd ed. (Sagamore Beach, MA: Academx, 2012).

29 One may find helpful here the work of Thomas L. Haskell, “Objectivity Is Not Neutrality: Rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream,” History and Theory 29 (May 1990): 129–57.

30 These comments may be very easily misunderstood and are in no way a denial, mistrust, or sidestepping of the reliability or inspiration of the New Testament texts, as will be discussed momentarily. There are many additional ways to make these arguments. My research assistant Ben Shaw has developed a PowerPoint presentation titled “12 Considerations Regarding the Reliability of the New Testament” that is very much directed to the broader subject here. Further, the author has delineated arguments as well, mentioned directly below. But the overall thrust here is basically to say that the minimal facts method is one argument among several routes for treating the topics of the death, burial, empty tomb, and resurrection appearances of Jesus, besides other select topics.

31 Of course, this by no means coerces any sort of conversion from those who are un-inclined to believe.

32 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, quotations on page 74 (see chap. 2, n. 15). On this same page Ehrman explains further: “Consider an analogy. We don’t dismiss early American accounts of the Revolutionary War simply because they were written by Americans. We take their biases into consideration and sometimes take their descriptions of events with a pound of salt. But we do not refuse to use them as historical sources.”

33 These instances are found on many occasions throughout this research, often in later chapters in this same volume.

34 Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 290.

35 See Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chap. 10; Habermas, Resurrection of Jesus, appendix 2; Habermas, “Jesus and the Inspiration of Scripture,” Areopagus Journal 2 (2002): 11–16.

36 Recall here that we are discussing scholars according to the above definition, including being at least willing to study these issues in a fair amount of detail. As such, we are definitely not addressing every blogger or other individual who just appears to want to “blow off steam” or otherwise “go off” on these things no matter where their opinions lie, or simply deny everything so as not to have to respond to anything. It is likely that progress may still be made with these techniques with the help of listening, sharing, and dialogue. This has been observed repeatedly in a variety of circumstances. The minimal data and how they function have proven to be a powerful method.

37 For an example of how this is done for the specific facts mentioned above, see Habermas and Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 19–77; Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidences for Immortality (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 133–36, and esp. the corresponding endnotes, 404–7; to extend the list a bit see 126–33, 141–47, along with the endnotes. My debates, such as those with former atheist philosopher and specialist on the question of miracles Antony Flew, along with other scholars, may also provide details of how this was done on those occasions. For details, see part 3 of Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, or compare our dialogue years later in Habermas and Flew, Atheist and Theist Dialogue, 1–7. In the latter case, the debate actually began with the participants assessing twelve historical events as mentioned earlier in this chapter and then pushing each other on the best explanations for these events. For my follow-up essay, I chose to zero in on closing ambiguities in the skeptics’ arguments, such as hallucinations, other naturalistic options, resurrection agnosticism, and moving on to elements of theism; see Habermas, “Applying Resurrection Research and Closing Loopholes,” 89–95.

38 For extensions of the resurrection argument to other crucial Christian events, see these entire volumes: Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope; Habermas, Resurrection of Jesus. For the possibility of adding a few more minimal facts to our list, see Habermas “Minimal Facts Approach,” particularly 25–26, as well as Licona, “In Reply,” esp. 55–56.

39 Although these two terms are sometimes differentiated, I will refer to them here in a more general sense, as roughly dealing with some of the same data and conclusions.

40 An example of the latter would be the fairly popular tenet that Mark utilized a pre-Markan passion narrative. If this were the case, this material would obviously date earlier than the Gospel itself. For further research results on this point, Marion Soards’s survey of thirty-four scholarly works concludes that there was such a pre-Markan passion source. See Soards, “The Question of a Premarcan Passion Narrative,” in Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Anchor Bible Reference Library (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1523–24.

41 For the examples of two agnostic New Testament scholars who date Mark approximately AD 40 for different reasons, see Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel, Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 102 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 66–90; James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2004), particularly chaps. 4–5. While this is not the normal date that either conservative or skeptical scholars assign to Mark’s Gospel, the arguments here need to be considered.

42 Joshua Pelletier, “The Modern-Day Scholarly Opinion of the Dating of Mark’s Gospel” (master’s thesis, Houston Baptist University, April 9, 2020), esp. 1, 32–38. This thesis is a survey of 207 scholars whose publications dated from 1965–2019. These researchers all held doctorates in relevant fields and their views included conservative to very skeptical positions. Pelletier reported concerning the Gospel of Mark, “A large majority of those scholars hold to a dating of A.D. 70 or earlier.” Additionally, the views that the traditional author was Mark and that the apostle Peter was the chief source behind the author were very popular with a respectable number of these scholars.

43 For both scholarly as well as popular examples, see Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), chaps. 1–5; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2007); Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2011); Craig S. Keener, Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), section 1; Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Jesus of the Gospels: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2020), chap. 1; Daniel B. Wallace, ed., Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, Text and Canon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2011), chaps. 1–2 for example; Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1965), chaps. 1–2; Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), esp. chaps. 6–9; Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), chaps. 16–18; J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), chap. 5; Winfried Corduan, No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity (Nashville: B&H, 1997), chaps. 10–11; A. J. Hoover, The Case for Christian Theism: An Introduction to Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), chaps. 10–11; Clark H. Pinnock, Set Forth Your Case (Chicago: Moody, 1967), esp. chaps. 7, 9–10; Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville: Nelson, 2017), esp. chaps. 1–5, 14–26; John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), chaps. 2–7; R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), parts 1 and 3. For the latest count of the crucial statistics pertaining to our most ancient manuscript portions of the New Testament compared to ancient classical writings, as well as the numbers of quotations from the early church fathers and other gems, many of which have changed significantly in recent decades, see Clay Jones, “The Bibliographical Test Updated,” Christian Research Journal 35 (2012); available at www.equip.org/articles/the-bibliographical-test-updated/. For a newer and much larger version, updated even further, including many charts and colored photographs, see Josh McDowell and Clay Jones, “The Bibliographical Test,” May 20, 2014, available at https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Bibliographical-Test-Update-08.13.14.pdf. For a Roman Catholic study, see Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), particularly chap. 9.

44 Note that it may be difficult at times to know if any of the authors below prefer to be counted as evangelicals, or, for that matter, if they assuredly do not wish to be included as such.

45 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

46 Another hugely influential volume in this discussion is James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (see chap. 1, n. 3); see also John A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (see chap. 1, n. 43); Robinson, Redating the New Testament, rev. ed. (London: SCM, 2012); Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus? (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990), particularly chaps. 3–5 and the conclusion; C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982); Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001); Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000); Kenneth E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Themelios 20 (1995): 4–11; C. H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22); Ulrich Wilkens, “The Understanding of Revelation within the History of Primitive Christianity,” in Revelation as History, ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg, trans. David Granskou (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1968), 55–121; A. M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), chaps. 2, 3, 8, and 10; Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), chaps. 5 and 12; Vincent Taylor, New Testament Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949); Alan Richardson, Christian Apologetics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), chaps. 6 and 9 on “Special Revelation” and “The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible”; William Manson, Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ: With Special Reference to Form Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946). On the Old Testament, see K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Sigmund Mowinkel, The Old Testament as the Word of God, trans. Reidar B. Bjornard (Nashville: Abingdon, 1959).

47 Helmut Koester almost sounds like some conservative authors when he states that the New Testament manuscripts have a base that is “far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.” See Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 2:15–17; John A. T. Robinson is even closer to the apologist’s style above when he provides a large number of salient details and then declares that the extant New Testament copies “make it by far the best attested text of any writing in the ancient world.” See Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 33–38 (quote on 36). Antony Flew, during his atheist days, agreed with such an assessment of the manuscript evidence in Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 66–67.

48 Ehrman, New Testament, esp. chap. 20 (290 provides some particulars), along with a helpful chart and overall early dates of composition on 44.

49 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:52, which also includes the early dates of these epistles and other very helpful information on 102–4.

50 Actually, this is one of the most widely misunderstood elements with regard to the contemporary critical mindset. Quite often at popular university lectures, after defining the minimal facts method and then moving on to a text such as 1 Cor 15:3–7, I frequently hear the remark, perhaps equally from Christians and skeptical unbelievers, “Hey, I thought you said that you were not going to use the New Testament in making your case.” Of course, I never made any such comment. But that is often what is “heard” in my comment about utilizing only data that are well evidenced and that critical scholars will allow. Somehow it is very difficult to convey the explanation that it is not whether the New Testament gets cited, but how it is cited and what authority is allowed regarding the text. But these ideas must be communicated because it is often unknown to many on both sides that if the relevant New Testament texts are ignored, critical scholars such as Ehrman, Crossan, or someone else will be perfectly willing to quote the same passages! Thus, it is not that someone cites an accredited text, but how, why, or to what end they are cited! Besides, if the passages were being used so erroneously, why would critical scholars virtually always agree with the resulting data?

51 As a bit of a major and noteworthy aside, Luke Timothy Johnson agrees with Ehrman, Koester, and others on the “broad consensus” among critical scholars regarding these genuine Pauline Epistles (255, with group dates given on 144). But then he states the “positive bias for the authenticity of all the [thirteen Pauline] letters” and provides his reasons for this conclusion (255–57) in The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

52 Ehrman, Historical Jesus, chap. 5, quotation on 145; cf. 148.

53 Gary R. Habermas, “New Testament Is Historically Reliable,” 147–60 (see chap. 2, n. 16); Gary R. Habermas, “The New Testament,” in Why Believe? God Exists! Rethinking the Case for God and Christianity, ed. Terry L. Miethe and Gary Habermas (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1993), 247–59; Habermas, Resurrection of Jesus, appendix 2; Habermas, “Reliability of the Gospels” (see chap. 2, n. 16).

54 Sometimes critical scholars have made rather surprising positive comments regarding the reliability of the biblical text compared to other ancient texts. For example, eminent Buddhist scholar and former Oxford University lecturer Edward Conze points out the strong tradition in support of Christian origins. Then he asserts, “Buddhist tradition differs fundamentally from that of Christianity. . . . Buddhists possess nothing that corresponds to the ‘New Testament.’ . . . The bulk of the selections in this book was written down . . . about 600 to 900 years after the Buddha’s demise. . . . Some of it must represent the direct and actual sayings of the Buddha himself. At present we have, however, no objective criterion which would allow us to isolate the original gospel. All attempts to find it are based on mere surmise, and the discussion of the subject generally leads to nothing but ill will and fruitless disputes.” See Conze, ed. and trans., Buddhist Scriptures (London: Penguin, 1959), 11–12. Another Oxford University fellow, P. A. Brunt, discussed the exemplary research practices of the ancient Greek historian Thucydides as he sought out eyewitness data and strove for accuracy in his writing, when later historians of antiquity did not do such a fine job. Then Brunt adds seemingly out of nowhere that the art of good research and documentation “reappeared” with Jewish and Christian writers regarding the treatment of their Scriptures. See P. A. Brunt, “Introduction,” in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, trans. Benjamin Jowett, rev. ed. (New York: Washington Square Press, 1963), xxii–xxiii. Ancient historian Edwin Yamauchi’s comments provide yet another comparative example of this sort, relating the New Testament–accredited reports of Jesus to the writings of other well-known religious figures of antiquity. See Yamauchi, Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Muhammad, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972), 20, 39–41. Incidentally, Yamauchi’s comments on Buddha’s teachings (6–7) and later, legendary miracle accounts (7, 18) sound quite similar to Conze’s demarcations above.

55 This is not to say that these sorts of approaches have only emerged during the past few decades. Strangely reminiscent are the ideas of Enlightenment philosophers like Blaise Pascal, Pénsees: Thoughts on Religion and Other Subjects, trans. William Finlayson Trotter, ed. H. S. Thayer and Elisabeth B. Thayer (New York: Washington Square Press, 1965), comments 564, 838, 843, 846; and John Locke, On the Reasonableness of Christianity, ed. George W. Ewing (Chicago: Regnery, 1965), paragraphs 58–61.

56 Or, perhaps a minimal facts strategy could be employed from the outset!

57 One major exception is the Greek historian Thucydides, who unlike Herodotus and others, eschewed supernatural involvement in history in his Peloponnesian Wars.

58 See Moses Hadas, “Introduction,” in The Complete Works of Tacitus, trans. A. F. Church and W. J. Brodribb (New York: Random House, 1942), ix, xiv, xvii–xviii.

59 The nuances are added here since reporting what some individuals may be thinking, believing, or doing personally could well be different from agreeing with the report(s). It should be noted, however, that Tacitus clearly seems to accept at least some of these supernatural reports.

60 See translator Robert Graves’s comment in “Foreword,” in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, The Twelve Caesars (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957), 7.

61 Some examples from The Twelve Caesars include Aug. 81, 94, 97; Tib. 74; Cal. 57; Claud. 46; Ves. 5; Tit. 10; and Dom. 23.

62 Other instances include Aug. 1; Tib. 75; and Dom. 23.

63 These comments include Aug. 97; Cal. 59; and Nero 56.

64 Suetonius also reports that a “Thessalian” once stopped Augustus on his way to Philippi and claimed that he had met Julius Caesar’s ghost while traveling on a lonely road (Aug. 96)!

65 Some examples can be found in The Twelve Caesars, Aug. 94, 97; Claud. 46; Ves. 5, 25.

66 More cases are mentioned as well: Aug. 5, 6, 94, 96; Cal. 57; Ves. 5.

67 See Tacitus, Ann. 1.3. Translation in Titus Livius, The History of Rome, trans. D. Spillan (London: Bell and Daldy, 1872), bk. 1:3.

68 While it may be countered that Suetonius’s accounts could have been based on earlier reports, scholars quite regularly draw that same conclusion regarding the Gospels, including still earlier gaps. For detailed examples of this recognition, see Dunn, Jesus Remembered; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

69 See esp. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; cf. Suetonius, Nero 16; Claud. 25.

70 While the critical issues with John of course go beyond the issue of the date alone, these two Roman authors, as we have seen, also have additional problems beyond the much later time distance. Scholars will debate these subjects in various ways, but what if Mark, Matthew, and Luke were used instead of John?

71 Such as Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 250. See also Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 201–4, whose discussion is very helpful here regarding the responses of other major New Testament researchers, reporting that the scholarly consensus has “shifted significantly” on this issue (202).

72 Another Roman historian, Cassius Dio, though writing approximately a century later than Tacitus and Suetonius, agrees with the former that the second man’s problem was a withered hand (Hist. rom., 65.8).

73 Hadas, “Introduction,” x, xviii.

74 Graves, “Foreword,” 7.

75 Some of these examples are found in Suetonius, Tib. 73; Galb. 21; Otho 10.

76 Periodically, some apologists have even moved from the indications that we have excellent manuscript evidence for the New Testament text itself (which even a goodly number of critical scholars allow, a few of which were mentioned above) straight to thinking that this justifies the events and doctrines which are recorded in them. But this alone mistakes the confirmation of the wording for establishing the reports within them. While it is indeed crucial to know that we have as accurate of wording as possible from the originals, the words alone do not indicate that we likewise have confirming knowledge of the historical events or theology reported therein. The latter does not simply follow automatically. For example, even if we knew that we had Homer’s precise wording in the Iliad, this would not then prove that the events recorded in the volume really occurred. What if we have a very high percentage of Homer’s own words but Homer only simply meant to write fiction? Or what if the miracle claims were hearsay at best?

77 Some of this critique is indebted to a 2013 research essay by one of my PhD students, Garret Robinson, “Evaluating the Healing Miracles of Vespasian and Jesus,” in the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary Apologetics 920 course. This paper was later expanded significantly and approved for reading at the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, March, 2014.

78 For some details here, see Suetonius, Ves. 5.

79 Of course this critique can cut more than one way, hence the need, once again, to evaluate specific details in miracle claims.

80 As ancient historian Edwin Yamauchi reminds his readers: “If we exclude later legendary and apologetic accounts, we find that early accounts attribute miracles only to Jesus.” See Yamauchi, Jesus, 40.

81 An intriguing text worth noting here briefly is found in the account in John 12:27–30. We are told that Jesus prayed to his Father, who spoke to him audibly. But rather than going wild with fear or amazement, the folks in the crowd had different opinions as to what was happening. Some thought an angel was speaking to Jesus—a fair guess but ultimately incorrect. Rather incredibly, many of these superstitious people (at least supposedly) apparently thought it was merely thundering! Here we have one of our earlier naturalistic assumptions! Jesus has to identify the voice as his Father. Whatever readers make of this text in historical terms, the point is that the author did not seem to think the variety of opinions, and even a very natural one at that, was too out of the ordinary.

82 Interestingly enough, while mentioning the report of Vespasian’s healing miracles, C. S. Lewis remarked: “I do not think that it is the duty of a Christian apologist (as many sceptics suppose) to disprove all stories of the miraculous which fall outside the Christian records. . . . I am in no way committed to the assertion that God has never worked miracles through or for Pagans or never permitted created supernatural beings to do so.” See Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 137–38.

83 This objection is exceptionally common and will be addressed in much detail in latter chapters. But simply to whet the appetite in just one of several key areas, what if there were a plethora of reported miracle claims today, including many high-caliber cases that were exceptionally well evidenced with scientific testing both before and after?

84 Especially in distinction to the equivalent attitudes regarding the Greco-Roman cases, probably even a majority of the most influential skeptical New Testament scholars concede that, on the basis of the data alone, Jesus was at least a healer. In fact, Marcus Borg argued very strongly that “despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61 (see chap. 2, n. 32); see also 59–61, 65–71, which include the extended context. Though not as skeptical, major researcher John Meier clearly affirmed, “In sum, the statement that Jesus acted as and was viewed as an exorcist and healer during his public ministry has as much historical corroboration as almost any other statement we can make about the Jesus of history.” Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27). These two comments are indeed stated strongly. Back to the heavily skeptical and non-Christian researchers: these affirmatory views concerning Jesus’s miracles are clearly stated on this point by Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1934), 146; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955), 1:61; Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), esp. 25, 566; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261, cf. 315–17; Geza Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 5–6, 97; Harold Remus, Jesus as Healer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 106–18.

85 In his unpublished PhD dissertation, Benjamin C. F. Shaw summarizes the research efforts of almost two dozen critical researchers who provided various compilations of recognized historical data from Jesus’s life. Noteworthy here regarding lists pertaining more generally to Jesus’s life as a whole, more than half are from generally nonconservative scholars. See Shaw, “Philosophy of History, Historical Jesus Studies, and Miracles: Three Roadblocks to Resurrection Research” (PhD diss., Liberty University, 2020), 153–68. Another work that both affirms and provides more confirmation for the minimal facts approach is that of Justin Bass, The Bedrock of Christianity: The Unalterable Facts of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020).

86 McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017), 220–21.

87 A last thought should be emphasized from my essay “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus,” 26, as well as several other of my publications. Even when one employs a rather critical, even skeptical (indeed, “minimal”) approach, Jesus’s resurrection can be shown historically to be the best conclusion for the data. It appears that critical scholars who choose to disbelieve the resurrection have some explaining to do. But this does not change anything regarding the minimal facts method being just that—a useful approach. This should be clear from the subtitle of my essay “The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity,” as well as from the central emphases throughout other writings. Methods are more like practical techniques and should not be taken as the substance itself. (For example, an axe is an instrument that may be utilized to cut timber to build a home, but it is not the only way to split or cut the wood. Neither is it the wood itself, but rather, only the instrument that may be used. The wood is the key ingredient.) So not only is the approach here not a replacement for a stronger view of Scripture, but since the method and the doctrine occupy different classifications, as just mentioned, confusing them would be a category mistake. That is precisely why this journal article ended with these words: a strategy “is not a prescription for how a given text should be approached in the original languages and translated, or how a systematic theology is developed, or how a sermon is written. So it should never be concluded that the use of such methods in an apologetic context indicate [sic] a lack of trust in Scripture as a whole, or, say, the Gospels in particular. Nor should it cause others to question or doubt their beliefs. Thus, it should only be understood and utilized in its proper context” (26).

5

Listing the Minimal Historical Facts

Critical scholarship during the past few decades has generally inclined toward a more positive treatment of the data surrounding the New Testament accounts of the historical Jesus and his death and resurrection in particular. While there are a variety of trends, these patterns are probably the most constructive and affirmative that scholarly research has witnessed in the past two centuries. Stretching back through the old German liberalism of Friedrich Schleiermacher, David Strauss, and Otto Pfleiderer, to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and like-minded thinkers, to the later trends introduced by Rudolf Bultmann and his students, these more optimistic trends at present seem to be a major result of the research done by the Third Quest for the historical Jesus.1

One of the chief reasons for this change has been the application of critical principles of historiography to the central components surrounding these events, including Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the disciples’ experiences that convinced them that they had actually seen the risen Jesus, the exceptionally early reports of these events, the disciples’ transformations and willingness to die for this resurrection message, the centrality of this teaching, and the conversions of James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul due to their own experiences. These facets are recognized by the great majority of critical scholars, the vast preponderance of whom arrived at these conclusions without believing in what we termed in chapter 1 as “the general reliability of the New Testament.” How and why did the scholarly consensus arrive at this point? How have scholars recognized the effectiveness of arguing from historical facts that can be independently established for strong reasons?

Our purpose here is to continue building in the direction begun in the previous chapter by chronicling more of the trends among critical researchers who outline or discuss facts from the end of Jesus’s life that may be known according to the recognized canons of historiography and accepted as such by the majority of contemporary researchers. Though the actual evidences for these data are not provided in this chapter, these scholarly lists may serve as a type of guideline for today’s tendencies as sort of a common ground or starting point. Then we will turn to the lists of data from Jesus’s last days that we have termed the “minimal facts” approach—sort of a “lowest common denominator” groundwork for much of what comes in the later chapters in this study.

Contemporary Critical Scholars and the Search for the Historical Facts about Jesus

In recent historical Jesus research, many critical scholars prefer to begin their exploration by stating at the outset a list of critically derived data that we may know about Jesus. This practice is part of a general tendency among historical researchers as a whole to begin building cases based on what is taken to be a consensus historical position, what historian Christopher Blake has called the “very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of professional historians.”2 As Richard Evans has remarked more recently, it is preferable to employ “a wide measure of agreement which transcends not only individuals but also communities of scholars.”3 Michael Licona summarizes the issue this way: “A consensus opinion can be valuable for recognizing objectivity when the group is composed of scholars from all interested camps with the exception of some fringe positions.”4

What would such lists look like as utilized by critical scholars?5 Robert Funk, founder and well-known member of the skeptical Jesus Seminar,6 in his book Honest to Jesus, includes subheads such as “Assorted Facts and Figures” and “The Death of Jesus: The Bare Facts.”7 In spite of his skepticism, Funk states that “there are a few assorted facts to which most critical scholars subscribe.” Then he declares rather amazingly: “These are data that a disinterested, neutral observer could have attested.”8 Over many pages, he records a surprisingly long list of data, including the likelihood that Jesus was a teacher, healer, and exorcist. At the end of Jesus’s life, for our purposes, the Romans executed Jesus by crucifixion under the rulers Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate: “The bare facts that Jesus was executed in Jerusalem on the authority of Pontius Pilate have stood up under close and repeated examination.”9 According to Funk, Jesus also may have been buried in a common grave.

Afterward, Funk holds that the disciples were disappointed, frightened, and fled the Jerusalem area. They were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them in a “series of visions” that included appearances to the previously skeptical James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus. The earliest reports of Jesus’s appearances identify him as a figure shown luminously, accompanied by a blinding light, and imparting a revelatory communication. This deep conviction that Jesus had been raised from the dead became the “cornerstone” of their confession that Jesus was divine and seated at God’s right hand. Their lives were changed, as these events were “the inauguration of the apostolic mission of the church.” Later, Peter and Paul both died between AD 60 and 70.10

Another list of recognized data is that of Oxford University Jewish historian Geza Vermes, who begins one of his early volumes by building on a similar standard: “Let us begin then by selecting a few non-controversial facts concerning Jesus’ life and activity, and endeavor to build on these foundations.”11 In Vermes’s initial context, this critical historian mentions only a few of these ancient reports. Some examples, like those in Funk’s list, include Jesus being known “chiefly as a charismatic teacher, healer, and exorcist.” His teachings were “essentially Jewish,” such as his agreement with the Pharisees that the resurrection of the dead would be a bodily event. He was crucified and executed by Pontius Pilate.12 Adding that “no serious scholar of today would query the main threads of the narratives,” Vermes mentions other items, such as Jesus’s public ministry during John the Baptist’s preaching of repentance in Galilee, Jesus’s later clash with the Jerusalem authorities, and his being put to death on a cross.13

More specifically addressing other matters in terms of this study, one of Vermes’s later books is titled The Resurrection. As in his earlier works, and in keeping with his own discipline, he begins by saying in the foreword that he is most interested in the work of the historian and the scholarly task of studying which items from the New Testament are grounded in fact. He discusses acting like a detective and unraveling and separating legendary elements from those that are “hardly questionable.”14 He describes his research this way: “The present study is essentially devoted to the evidence” pertaining to the resurrection as developed in the New Testament.15

Somewhat surprisingly, Vermes refers to the resurrection as “an unparalleled phenomenon in history” and as “unparalleled in the religions of antiquity.”16 Here he reaches some intriguing conclusions, such as the available facts favoring both the empty tomb and even Jesus’s apparitions or visions being historical occurrences! The empty tomb is established by several things, predominantly by the embarrassing testimony of the women given the male-controlled Jewish culture, but also by the conflicting reports of the names and number of women as well as the fact that the empty tomb “is clearly an early tradition.” The apparitions or visions of Jesus are supported by being recounted in several sources, especially as reported by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1–8, who took them from an earlier tradition.17

Can alternative hypotheses account for this same data? Vermes goes as far as to entertain eight other options, most of which are naturalistic suppositions. After examining each one briefly, he “discounted the two extremes,” leaving the six others, but concludes, “All in all, none of the six suggested theories stands up to strict scrutiny.” So while none of the other possibilities work, nonetheless we must leave the matter right there, for resurrection cannot be proven.18

Having written some epochal works while teaching at Oxford, Cambridge, and Duke, E. P. Sanders ranks as one of the most influential scholars in the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. He initiates one of his major studies by declaring, “No one will dispute that . . . one should begin with what is relatively secure and work out to more uncertain points.”19 Then Sanders turns to “several facts about Jesus’ career and its aftermath which can be known beyond doubt.” Among these lofty, “almost indisputable facts,” he lists Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, his being a preacher and healer, gathering disciples, and later dying by crucifixion outside Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. His followers continued the movement after his death.20 In fact, “that the resurrection experiences of the disciples provided the motivating force behind the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ and as Lord, and much of its content, is not in dispute.”21

Nearing the end of his volume, Sanders concludes that he attempted “to rest the main themes of the study on unassailable data.” Here he unpacks his list a bit more with regard to what we can know about the historical Jesus and how certain we can be of each assertion, including Jesus’s work with his apostles, his preaching of the kingdom of God, and that those who accepted his message would share in his kingdom.22

In a later volume on the historical Jesus, Sanders began in much the same way by asserting that he would once again utilize the most certain historical evidence, employing facts that are “almost beyond dispute.” From the end of Jesus’s life, Sanders lists his arrest and interrogation, along with his being executed by Pilate. The “equally secure facts” include Jesus’s disciples fleeing, after which “they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death.”23 Some reported that Jesus’s tomb was found empty. Then Sanders repeats, “Thereafter his followers saw him.”24

Sanders concludes in an epilogue on the resurrection: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact.” Moreover, numerous alternative theories are unsuccessful in explaining these events in natural terms. For example, he “was not a ghost, or a resuscitated corpse, or a badly wounded man limping around.” Nor was this a case of deliberate fraud or “mass hysteria.” But “we know that after his death his followers experienced what they described as the ‘resurrection’: the appearance of a living but transformed person who had actually died. They believed this, they lived it, and they died for it.” Though we cannot reconstruct these things precisely, “what is raised is a spiritual body,” not “a resuscitated corpse.”25

Jesus’s followers fashioned a community after these events. It was these “resurrection experiences” that convinced the disciples “that in Jesus’ life and death God had acted to save humanity.” His followers taught “faith in Jesus” and even conferred titles upon him such as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God.26

Like many other influential historical Jesus scholars, Jürgen Moltmann also provides a list of what he terms “the relatively well-attested historical facts” surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. He includes Jesus’s public crucifixion and death, along with the disciples fleeing to Galilee, obviously in “disappointment and fear.” Afterwards, the only events “that can actually be proved” are the women’s message of the empty tomb and the disciples’ assertions that they had seen Jesus Christ’s appearances in Galilee. The earliest report that we have of the appearances is Paul’s creedal list in 1 Cor 15:3 and following, as well as his own testimony in 1 Cor 9:1. All of the witnesses agreed that Jesus was alive in “the eternal glory of God.” Moltmann thinks that these appearances were manifested in the form of “visions of a supernatural light” but were in some sense inward experiences that changed the disciples’ lives and existence, so that they were even willing to risk everything for the proclamation of this message.27

What sorts of interests drive these recent trends among major critical scholars toward listing historical facts regarding Jesus that may serve as a bit of common ground on which to build other historical conclusions? Before the Third-Quest-for-the-historical-Jesus scholars in the later twentieth century, this was not always the critical pathway that was taken. In fact, during Bultmann’s heyday and its aftermath, a few decades were generally characterized by an avoidance of searching for the Jesus of history.28 Sometimes termed the “No Quest” period, historical studies were few and far between.29

Even when the fairly abbreviated “New Quest for the historical Jesus” movement (as it was called then)30 followed, led by several of Bultmann’s former students, the position often failed to stray very far away from the Bultmannian tree.31 While there was a brief emphasis on not divorcing Jesus entirely from history, and though some of the inroads were fairly distinctive, original, and crucial, too many aspects were also quite similar, somewhat repetitive, and almost “wooden.”

Nonetheless, from this progress, other trends that had been emerging in critical circles for decades began to achieve more prominence. One major advance for our purposes in particular was that scholars moved toward the development of specific textual “criteria” for ascertaining more exactly which sayings or events in Jesus’s life could be declared historical, according to different degrees of likelihood.32 This was an important step in that such criteria provided more particular demarcations of an epistemic nature, assisting in determining when certain levels of evidence or other standards had most likely been met and to what extent. This development of historical markers had become exceptionally crucial, though not without developing its own issues and needs for additional clarification.

Another noteworthy elucidation is that these criteria are not specifically New Testament tools per se. Rather, these delineations have also been utilized by secular historians.33 This is hardly surprising given that this enterprise is of a historical nature.34

One of the early scholars to move in this direction was University of Chicago Divinity School New Testament professor Norman Perrin. Placing himself in the tradition just described, he also freely explains his differences.35 Although there is much territory in between the views described earlier in this chapter and Perrin’s position, he still begins his volume with some reminiscent words. He had hoped to “represent an irreducible minimum of historical knowledge available to us at this present time.”36 His work is an early and obviously fairly guarded form of utilizing these textual criteria and applying them in the context of the Gospels to ascertain a few more historical nuggets.37 Robert Stein’s volume presents a more recent treatment of a greater number of these criteria, exploring both the possibilities as well as the potential problems with these methods.38

A decade later, in his last book, Perrin certainly moves even further in this direction, but he was still a significant ways away from the methodology of the Third Quest. In particular, while dealing specifically with the resurrection, it is clear at several junctures that he had certainly progressed a fair distance from certain aspects of the Bultmannian shadow that was still cast quite widely over many particular publications and areas of study at that time. Though definitely not moving all the way out, Perrin had taken some large steps toward the emerging new trends. After all, how many researchers at this time and scholarly juncture had written a volume on historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection?39

Perrin considers the Gospel treatments of the empty tomb plus the narratives of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to be mythological in character while still acknowledging the presence of the early formula in 1 Cor 15:3–7, which contains the list of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to both individuals and groups, emphasizing the critical importance of Paul’s personal witness. Mentioning some recent “evidence” for the resurrection appearances, Perrin goes as far as to observe that in contrast with the late message of the empty tomb, “the more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” Perrin describes these events as the disciples being “granted a vision of Jesus which convinced them that God had vindicated Jesus out of his death,” thereby commissioning them to service. Yet Perrin adds that he is “reluctant to say more than that because I believe that I have reached the limits of what the testimony of Paul entitles me to say.”40

Although sporting a far different viewpoint and style than Perrin, Bart Ehrman is another critical scholar who utilizes and applies the textual criteria to the Gospel texts,41 enabling him to arrive at a historical list of probable teachings and events in Jesus’s ministry.42 Ehrman singles out Jesus’s teachings, such as predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple and the coming of God’s kingdom, including the necessary entrance requirements. We also know that Jesus did certain things, such as being baptized by John the Baptist, calling and teaching twelve disciples, fraternizing with the despised and outcast in Jewish society, and having a reputation as a healer and exorcist,43 among other items.44

Ehrman states, “The most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion is independently attested in a wide array of sources and is not the sort of thing that believers would want to make up about the person proclaimed to be the powerful Son of God.” We also know some political circumstances and medical details surrounding Jesus’s death.45

After the death of Jesus, Christianity began. Ehrman states this about the early disciples:

Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death.46

Elsewhere, Ehrman extends this last comment concerning those disciples who thought they had seen Jesus alive again after his death to his brother James (whom Paul knew) and to at least one group of believers: the women. On the last appearance to the women, Ehrman asserts, “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he [Jesus] soon appeared to them [the women], convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.”47

Of course, it absolutely goes without saying that simply to list facts as historical, or to assent to such, does not make them so! Assertions and opinions are not arguments! Rather, our purpose so far in this chapter has been to note a few trends across some potentially intriguing theological barriers that illustrate what appears to be a fairly popular tendency of late to note and largely agree on some of the major happenings at the end of Jesus’s life. Many of the authors we have surveyed also provide the reasons for their claims. But it remains for us in later chapters to delineate the groundwork on which these historical occurrences are based. After all, we have stated a number of times that the initial and easily the most crucial rule for a minimal fact to fulfill is that each one must be well evidenced by strong indications of historicity.

So we do not have to belabor this survey any longer. It just appears to be at least a fairly popular trend today for critical scholars to begin their studies by recounting up front what a “lowest common denominator” list of historical teachings and events in Jesus’s life might look like.48 Of course, nothing here gets a free pass; anything on these scholarly lists can be questioned. But it still seems to be the case that, if done carefully, such a recounting can be a very helpful starting place, and for more than one reason. Usually employed as common ground for discussion, it can even be a helpful indication of where our dialogue partners are coming from, or what methodology they may prefer. Intriguingly, some scholars whose personal methodologies eschew or at least downplay approaches they consider to be overly concerned with a heavily historical research emphasis still tend to affirm the value of recognizing at least some “short list” of central historical essentials that are nonetheless quite obvious and well positioned. Examples are not difficult to locate.49

The Known or Accepted Historical Facts

Some amazing observations emerge from the preceding overview. In spite of having a decent range of theological and philosophical positions represented (although the absence of many conservatives may be noteworthy), there was still much widespread agreement concerning a fair rendering of the historical facts at the end of Jesus’s life. Initially, the scholars surveyed thought not only that a list of credible historical facts could be known about Jesus, but that this could serve as a general, common foundation for dialogue. This idea at the outset seems to follow a spirit at least somewhat similar to the helpfulness of a factual background for Jesus, as we have been discussing. It could be added that this method should proceed further in pushing for the best explanation for these data.

Rather incredibly, these critical scholars above even agree regarding items such as Jesus being widely accepted and recognized by friends and foes alike as a miracle worker and exorcist. He bothered the authorities and was crucified and died at the hands of the Romans. His disciples were disillusioned and dispirited after his death just before having real experiences of some kind. The disciples concluded that these experiences were appearances of the risen Jesus who actually had been raised from the dead as indicated by the reports of some who made this resurrection claim. In addition to several other items, this is quite a historical core, largely agreed to by a widespread diversity of researchers including a number of critical investigators.

What makes this summation all the more impressive is that, far from very few of these scholars being conservative, the preceding list includes a Jewish historian who was agnostic regarding the nature of Jesus’s appearances (Vermes), a well-known and well-published atheist New Testament scholar (Ehrman), cofounders of the Jesus Seminar (Funk, Borg), another critical New Testament scholar influenced by the skeptical Second or New Quest movement for the historical Jesus (Perrin), plus a post-Bultmannian New Testament researcher who differed significantly on the nature of the resurrection appearances (Marxsen). And while all of these critical scholars allow historical items such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is a very influential, self-styled “liberal, modern, secularized Protestant”50 (Sanders) who states more than once that the general consensus among scholars is that Jesus actually did appear in some sense to his disciples after his death. This is simply remarkable.

In the previous chapter we recounted details concerning two lists of historical facts from the end of Jesus’s life that are very widely accepted as historical: a longer one of about a dozen or so items, and another much shorter one ranging from three to seven of these same facts, depending on the audience. Both lists are very well recognized by a high percentage of critical scholars who have studied this material. The chief reason for this widespread recognition is the far more crucial consideration that strong data stand behind each of these details.

New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, classicists, philosophers and other scholars of various relevant disciplines, persuasions, and schools of thought obviously still differ, sometimes widely, on the amount of historical content contained in the Gospels and other early material, such as the interaction of one’s worldviews, questions pertaining to miracles, and other relevant topics. Yet, as we have seen, this does not impede them from a general consensus regarding a number of incidents over the last days of Jesus’s life. As pointed out in the previous chapter, the belief in the general reliability of the texts in question is not any sort of prerequisite for establishing these particular historical facts.

The result is that a wide swath of scholars still usually recognize that there are a number of known historical facts over this time in Jesus’s life. We will list here a dozen facts that are acknowledged as historical by virtually all researchers who investigate this area, regardless of their many differences in other tendencies.51 As mentioned earlier, we will not argue here for the historicity of these items but will delay such a defense until later chapters. This list is simply for the sake of getting this data out on the table, so to speak.

The Known or Accepted Historical Facts

1. Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.

2. Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb.52

3. Afterwards, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having their previous hope challenged.

4. The tomb in which Jesus was probably buried was discovered to be empty very soon after his interment.53

5. The disciples reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.

6. The teaching and proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection and the subsequent appearances took place very early after the disciples’ experiences.

7. These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief.

8. The disciples’ reports, preaching, and teaching of these resurrection experiences took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried shortly before.

9. The gospel message centered on the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

10. The gatherings of the Christian community began at approximately this same time, featuring the first day of the week as a frequent time for worship.

11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic or at least an unbeliever before his conversion, most likely believed and became a follower after he also believed that he saw the risen Jesus.

12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

These facts along with their supporting considerations will play a vital role in our study of Jesus’s resurrection. While we have pointed out clearly that scholars of course do not necessarily take the same angle on these events or draw the same interpretations or implications from them, the general agreement here among scholars of different theoretical persuasions is simply remarkable. With the exception of the empty tomb (and to some extent a private burial), which is still accepted by a clear majority of critical scholars, it is virtually unanimous that these events most probably happened. As far as the causal or interpretational differences of these facts, those cannot be either ignored or taken for granted, but must be discussed and evaluated as well.

We have regularly argued that, without much question, the most widely held historical events from Jesus’s entire life is that Jesus died and that his disciples were absolutely convinced that they had seen him alive again. We will return later to the historical foundations for these and other particulars.

The Minimal Facts

From the enumeration of the ten to twelve critically recognized facts such as those above, the shorter minimal facts list has received most of the attention. Numbering anywhere from three to seven items, the evidence in support of this more diminutive case contains the material that is most essential to the overall research that addresses the historicity of the occurrences in question.54

Here we will limit our primary discussion in this study to just six of the twelve facts.55 In addition, one of the other events above will be included because it meets the first and most crucial criterion of being evidentially as strong as several of the remaining considerations, but is still not considered as one of the six minimal facts since it is does not strictly meet the second standard of being almost unanimously recognized by critical scholars.56 Here is the list of the six minimal facts plus one:

The Minimal Facts (6 + 1)

1. Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.

2. The disciples afterwards reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.

3. These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their belief.

4. The proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences themselves.

5. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before his conversion, most likely believed after he also thought that he saw the risen Jesus.

6. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

+ 1 The private tomb in which Jesus was probably buried was discovered to be empty shortly after his death.

It was not our intent in this chapter to unpack these minimal facts any further. Our purpose was rather to simply state both the longer and shorter lists along with some of the background behind them to have an overlay of the “big picture.” We will simply add at the outset that the number of critical scholars who variously endorse, accept, or just plain concede these historical facts is amazingly both strong and diverse. Even samplings of such a compilation would be absolutely huge.

Another consideration should be kept in mind here. The minimal facts are not separate, sterile entities in and of themselves. Like historical facts in general, each one is recognized as an event precisely because it is initially confirmed by other considerations (sometimes a good many) that point to and establish it. There are numerous other indications that lead to and strongly favor every one of these facts. So it is important to note that a group of established and recognized facts are not stand-alone islands. They are themselves part of a larger foundation of material. Scholars sift and debate this entire process from start to finish. We must consider these underlying strata to ascertain if they indeed support these larger facts that we have just listed.

Conclusion

We remarked in the prior chapter that a fair number of scholars still build what might be thought of as a “top-down” case for the New Testament, establishing a reliable roof under which historical facts can be unpacked. While this is chiefly the common approach of more conservative researchers, we saw that a number of moderate critical scholars have also argued in this direction. Further, even a few more skeptical scholars have themselves taken some distinct steps of such a wider ranging nature as well.

Although this may be a different way to think about it for some, at least the more skeptical scholars tend to build their case by working from the ground up, often just one fact at a time, by utilizing the historical criteria and other recognized methods. Like the bricklayer, if they have a sufficient number of blocks, they may be able to construct a wall. It may be slower work, but what emerges can be the difference between a brick wall and a wooden fence. Wooden fences are still useful and sometimes both less expensive as well as necessary, though brick walls usually fare better in a storm.

But to follow this imprecise metaphor in terms of the academic’s situation, the bricklayer’s wall may be far smaller, since with more skeptical scholars it is often the case that far fewer bricks are thought to be available. It was our purpose in this chapter simply to outline a few of those more critical approaches. However, the scholars who build the wooden fences may try to convince their more skeptical colleagues that their methods can still work as well, at the very least in a supplemental sense, especially in certain helpful circumstances.

The minimal facts method is much closer to the bricklayer’s “bottom-up” approach. It seeks to produce an array of details pointing in the direction of particular historical facts. It is our goal as we move along throughout this study to ascertain if we have a strong enough foundation for such a case as well as to take at least some preliminary steps regarding the implications of such a case.

Notes

1 This moniker has stuck at least since Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 379 (see chap. 4, n. 16). For an overview of details and trends in this movement, see pages 379–403. Interestingly, James Charlesworth points out in his list of twenty areas of consensus among Jesus researchers that “in contrast to Bultmann’s time, it is now being recognized that there is considerable and reliable bedrock historical material in the Gospels.” See Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 6.

2 Christopher Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” 331 (see chap. 3, n. 56).

3 Richard J. Evans, In Defense of History (New York: Norton, 1999), 110.

4 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 64 (see chap. 2, n. 13). As an example of such a “fringe” group in this context, Licona cites a number of mainline scholars who dispute very strongly the theses of the Jesus mythicists (62–63).

5 As mentioned above, in this chapter we will only be listing these facts, not explicating, supporting, or critiquing them.

6 According to their group statement, the Jesus Seminar rejects 82 percent of the words of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 5 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

7 Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 32 and 220, respectively.

8 Funk, 32, 33. Actually, the second comment is rather incredible. It is simply startling that, given the current mindset of scholarship across a broad spectrum of thought, Funk thinks that there are even such things as “neutral observers,” especially in that the moment we observe anything, we are no longer neutral due to our having our own angle and perspective. But that he thinks this only seems to make him sound even more sure about these historical facts, not to mention being somewhat out of step with critical research.

9 Funk, 220.

10 Funk repeats these and other events over the span of many pages (32–40, 220–22, 264–71). Throughout, he often implies that, besides explaining his own position, he is either speaking on behalf of the Jesus Seminar or at least giving their views (as indicated on 34, 41, 220, 259, and so on).

11 Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 3.

12 Vermes, 3–6.

13 Vermes, 19–20.

14 Geza Vermes, The Resurrection (London: Penguin, 2008), x.

15 Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism, 9.

16 Vermes, 2 and 5, respectively.

17 Vermes, esp. 121–22, 141–42.

18 Vermes, 142–49.

19 E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 3.

20 Sanders, 10–11, 340.

21 Sanders, 19.

22 Sanders, 321–27.

23 E. P. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 6, 10–11 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

24 Sanders, 13–14.

25 Sanders, chap. 17, esp. 277–80. Sanders thinks that still more relevant data can also be known regarding the historical Jesus. Another example is his note that Jesus had a brother named James (Jesus and Judaism, 357n19) who was an unbeliever before but had become a believer and a leader in the early church after Jesus’s resurrection (Historical Figure of Jesus, 125–26). James died, presumably as a martyr, at the instigation of the high priest Ananus (Historical Figure of Jesus, 267).

26 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13–14.

27 Jürgen Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 74–75 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

28 Nonetheless, Bultmann famously commented, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.” This quotation is taken from his “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, trans. Frederick C. Grant, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 60. Still, he was skeptical as to how much of the authentic Jesus tradition could still be discovered (60–61). In spite of the rather obvious influences on his thought due to some of the more subjective, major historians like Benedetto Croce and Robin Collingwood, Bultmann still thought that historical research and real events had their place, as in Rudolf Bultmann, History and Eschatology: The Presence of Eternity, the 1955 Gifford Lectures (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 118–22, 130–37.

29 Before Bultmann, Karl Barth’s work exhibited a similar de-emphasis on the study of the historical Jesus. In Barth’s case, he did not deny the truth or value of historical events, but rather objected to the prospect of needing historical evidence for our deepest beliefs. Although there are many places that could be cited for this contrast here, arguably the best is Barth’s Church Dogmatics, vol. 4.1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrence, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), particularly 336–37, 351–53. For both Barth as well as Bultmann, although quite different in their views and conclusions, these more historical inclinations, including the often more negative attitudes and stances, could have been due to the hangover of the failed German Liberal agenda of the nineteenth century. Having witnessed the demise of the old liberal regime as well as being quite influential in its downfall, perhaps one or both of these highly influential scholars had grown jaded by the accumulated weight of their former education, the influential theological tenor at that time, and the constant barrage of the debate itself, at least during their early careers. For all of the very real differences between these two theological giants, they still agreed at the ends of their careers that quests for the historical Jesus took the emphasis too far away from where it needed to be, with the emphasis being placed on the kerygmatic Christ and the need for a deep and radical faith commitment. Apologetic interests were misplaced at best. See Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1966) for his disagreements with Bultmann’s agenda of demythologization, which reminded Barth too much of the nineteenth-century liberal theology (68), as well as his disapproval of ongoing efforts to discover the historical Jesus (69). For his part, Bultmann as well frequently critiqued attempts to defend key elements of the historical Jesus (esp. the supernatural aspects). In the process, Bultmann also chided Barth more than once from the opposite side, such as in Barth’s attempt to argue that Paul in 1 Cor 15:3–8 was defending the unity and identity of the earliest church preaching rather than the historical evidence for the resurrection! While Bultmann definitely agreed with Barth that attempts to demonstrate the resurrection were misplaced, he thought that Barth was incorrect in the view that Paul did not intend to cite the eyewitnesses as evidence on behalf of the resurrection appearances, as cited in Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 34–43; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:292–96 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

30 James M. Robinson, A New Quest for the Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1959). It has since been dubbed the “Second Quest for the historical Jesus.”

31 Such as Ernst Käsemann’s famous 1953 lecture, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in his Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964) and also included in The Historical Jesus Quest: Landmarks in the Search for the Jesus of History, ed. Gregory W. Dawes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 279–313; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), in addition to Robinson’s volume in the previous footnote. It should be remarked that Käsemann thought the empty tomb tradition was reliable (Käsemann in Dawes, 284), though this seems not to have resolved his doubts about the resurrection itself (284, 297) and opposed apologetics as an “embarrassment” (281). While historical facts about Jesus can indeed be established (303, 305, 311), the historical life of Jesus still cannot be reconstructed (311). Except for the comment regarding the empty tomb, Bultmann probably would not object to many of these comments. While Bornkamm speaks positively of the tradition surrounding Jesus’s miracles (130–31), not unlike Marcus Borg’s comments below, and treats the resurrection accounts fairly positively as well (180–86), these views still struggled at not crossing the faith-reason barrier at various junctures (180, 182, 184), again illustrating that while slightly new trends were emerging in significant ways, many key aspects were still within their predecessors’ shadows.

32 An early expression here can be found in Käsemann, “Problem of the Historical Jesus,” 302–11. For much more sophisticated versions, see esp. Stanley Porter, Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research, Library of New Testament Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2000) and Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 156–87 (see chap. 2, n. 35), both of which evaluate the criteria against the criticisms that have been raised. See also Allison, “Traditional Criteria of Authenticity” (see chap. 2, n. 17).

33 Two rather intriguing examples come from a couple of acclaimed and quite lengthy historical tomes on early American history that specifically patterned their approach on the minimal facts method. The first text states: “In this present work, we are taking what Christian philosopher Gary Habermas, in another context, calls ‘the minimalist facts approach.’ We are only going to say what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not going to present a hagiography of George Washington, i.e., we will not make him into an ecclesiastical saint.” See Peter A. Lillback with Jerry Newcombe, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr, PA: Providence Forum, 2006), 30. In defining the historical method of the second volume, the authors state that they will emphasize “what is incontrovertible evidence.” Thus, “the overall point of this is that it is best to not be too hasty in drawing conclusions about the faith of Thomas Jefferson or the lack thereof. This book will apply what Liberty University professor and author Dr. Gary Habermas has called ‘the minimalist facts approach.’” See Mark A. Beliles and Jerry Newcombe, Doubting Thomas? The Religious Life and Legacy of Thomas Jefferson (New York: James, 2015), 11.

34 For a few details especially on this last comment regarding the use of these criteria by historians, see Gary R. Habermas, “Recent Perspectives” (see chap. 2, n. 16) as well as the next chapter in this volume.

35 Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, esp. chap. 5 (see chap. 2, n. 35).

36 Perrin, 12.

37 Perrin enumerates and defines a few of these criteria as well as applies them to Synoptic Gospel texts (37–47).

38 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 153–87. Stein lists an impressive number of mostly earlier critical commentators who utilized positively one or more of these criteria, including Perrin, C. H. Dodd, T. W. Manson, R. S. Barbour, Joachim Jeremias, Reginald H. Fuller, David Catchpole, Ben Meyer, Richard Longenecker, Kenneth Grayston, N. L. McEleney, and Grant Osborne (159n13 for this list of scholars).

39 I have often remarked to my graduate students over the decades that one of the indelible marks of Bultmannian and similar influences was the general insistence on the crucial importance and even the centrality of Jesus’s resurrection proclamation, while at the same time only speaking exceptionally sparingly of the relevant historical events themselves and the key details. Large volumes of New Testament material in this tradition would frequently mention the overall slogans with only brief treatments of the historical, and even many of the theological, particulars. A major instance is especially the early work of German New Testament scholar Willi Marxsen, who devoted an entire series of lectures at Münster University to the subject of Jesus’s resurrection and then, like Perrin, wrote an entire book on the subject. Sizably longer than Perrin’s and delivered in German, Marxsen’s work could even be considered a bold undertaking. Although Marxsen drew a number of conclusions that hinted that the times were changing, it is obvious he had still remained closer to the older trends than had Perrin. Marxsen repeated often some of the key mantras from some members of the earlier No Quest period. Namely, there still remained a distinct bifurcation between what may actually have happened to the historical Jesus and with the resurrection, while still insisting that this was perhaps the greatest, even central, meaning of Christianity, both in the New Testament as well as now. For example: “Jesus is dead. But his offer has not thereby lost its validity.” The quotation is from Willi Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 147, emphasis in original. Similar comments appear in this volume on pages 77, 110, 128, 141–42, 144, where it is clear enough that although Jesus remains dead today, Jesus still, somehow, reaches out to us through the faith of the church! Note that Marxsen’s later text on the same subject moved even closer in some respects to the newer trends, as in Marxsen, Jesus and Easter: Did God Raise the Historical Jesus from the Dead?, trans. Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990). A major contrast and even tension is observable between pages 42, 44–45, 53–54, 70–73, 76–79, 84–85, 89–91, as compared with pages 45–47, 53, 69, 79–81.

40 Norman Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 78–84. A number of hangovers from older forms of criticism are apparent in Perrin’s comments, such as treating the Gospel resurrection narratives, including the empty tomb, as mythological reports (34–38, 55–58, 61–77, 80). While much more positive regarding Paul’s testimony (80–82), Perrin mentions briefly but appears to equivocate somewhat on the date of the formula in 1 Cor 15:3–7, attesting both that it is “very much older than the date of [Paul’s] letter,” which he places at about AD 55, along with the hint that it could be just a little earlier than this composition (79). Virtually no major critical scholars in recent decades have taken a view like this today regarding the date of this creedal text. Perrin also remarks, “Scholars are coming increasingly to the conclusion that the empty tomb tradition is an interpretation of the event . . . rather than a description of an aspect of the event itself” (80), as well as avoiding a discussion of what the admitted historical “evidence” might indicate for Jesus’s appearances (82). It should be noted carefully that the primary point of these remarks here is not that Perrin somehow refuses to speak more positively on these subjects (especially given my somewhat surprised mindset the very first time I read these comments many years ago!). After all, Perrin was writing several decades ago when some scholars were still prone to take more negative views of the empty tomb and Gospel appearance data as a whole. The chief angle here is that a number of these remarks are now quite dated and that critical scholars have frequently grown much more positive on a number of these evaluations since Perrin’s work. Researchers obviously cannot be held responsible when mainstream views change after their time! So the effort here was an attempt to document Perrin’s research in this volume in terms of contemporary changes in theological trends, as his thinking here occupied a bit of a “halfway house” between still appreciating some of Bultmann’s ideas (38, 58, 77), a New Quest for the historical backdrop, and his still coming to appreciate a few of the emerging trends in the Third Quest approach, which were in flux at the time of Perrin’s writing.

41 Again, for a critical evaluation of these criteria that still concludes they are valuable but that we need to be more nuanced in the way we present the results, such as concluding that a saying or event is “possibly authentic,” see Allison, “Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” 30.

42 For explications of more textual criteria, see Ehrman, New Testament, 201–7, 229–32 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

43 It may simply be a misperception on my part, but it seems like Ehrman is a little more careful than most critical scholars when mentioning the early belief or reputation held among those of Jesus’s day, including even his enemies, that Jesus was a miracle worker and an exorcist. It has been said that this is an almost unanimous opinion among critical scholars today. As Marcus Borg states quite strongly: “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” The quotation is taken from Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61, also 59 (see chap. 2, n. 32). Usually scholars report these occurrences quite straightforwardly, and so it seems to be simply assumed or taken for granted in the critical context that it is people’s views that are being discussed here and conceded, not necessarily the scholar’s own private position. This issue potentially has some ramifications elsewhere, but here it will simply be noted that quite often when the subject arises, Ehrman frequently offers rather strong caveats that he is discussing Jesus’s “reputation” or the beliefs of others. A few instances are found in Ehrman, New Testament, 240–41, 252–53, and Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 192–200, 227–29.

44 Ehrman includes a treatment of many such items in New Testament, 232–53.

45 Ehrman, quotation on 233; additional details on 248–50.

46 Ehrman, 253. Ehrman makes this comment and ones like it quite freely. He states nearly the same thing almost word for word in Jesus, 231.

47 Ehrman, Jesus, 229–30. Other strong comments regarding the historicity of these and other surrounding events are reported in 229–34.

48 As mentioned, in his dissertation Benjamin C. F. Shaw summarizes this research from almost two dozen critical scholars who compiled inventories, and most of the researchers were not conservative. See Shaw, “Philosophy of History,” 153–68 (see chap. 4, n. 85).

49 Another research volume that both affirms and provides additional confirmation specifically for the minimal facts approach is the work of Bass, Bedrock of Christianity (see chap. 4, n. 85). After providing a plethora of scholars who defend or allow these facts, Bass notes that 99 percent of researchers affirm the key events surrounding Jesus’s death, resurrection, and appearances, plus a few other connected pieces of data (see esp. Bass, 1–14, with this percentage citation being found on 11n18). Still other examples include Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 122–26; Johnson, Living Jesus, 10, 130–32 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 184–85.

50 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 334.

51 Even the small sample of scholars in this chapter indicates how differing overall persuasions do not necessarily require widespread disagreement on individual events.

52 While some scholars either hold or at least entertain the possibility of Jesus being buried in the ground, in a common grave, or otherwise, a private burial seemingly remains at least a majority position.

53 As I have noted in virtually every published list of these facts, the historicity of the empty tomb is not as widely accepted as are the other data here. But it is still accepted by a significant majority of contemporary scholars, as we will argue later.

54 As mentioned more than once already, the reason for the varying numbers of minimal facts in different publications is most of all because the total is fairly arbitrary to this extent: if it is the case that the majority of critical scholars often recognize additional facts anyway, then shortening the number to twelve, then to an even fewer number of about half that or even less, is not strictly necessary in the first place. Still, the decreasing size of these lists remains a valuable exercise to develop the briefer number for several reasons. Perhaps most of all, there may be a small number of skeptics for whom the minimal numbering is more advantageous. Further, it would obviously be a more focused study to do the necessary spadework in showing the historical basis for a fewer number of events, as well as to get even a general idea of those researchers who recognize them. The smaller sample of minimal facts will more likely garner larger acceptance percentages as well, since the emphasis is on the more widely accepted occurrences, even though at this point we are talking about only very small increases, since the larger lists receive sufficient recognition and factual support on their own.

55 A further clarification may be helpful and interesting with regard to those who may enjoy “inside details” to some additional specifics of the minimal facts argument. When Mike Licona wrote his PhD dissertation and his excellent, subsequent tome on the subject of Jesus’s resurrection, he reported a phone call with me in 2008 where just three minimal facts were utilized: Jesus’s death by crucifixion; the disciples’ experiences, which they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus; and Paul’s own experience, which he also believed to be a resurrection appearance; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 302–3. Without much question, these could well be the strongest of the group if we also add the early date at which these events were proclaimed. Four years earlier in our coauthored volume, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (see chap. 4, n. 2), Licona and I had listed four minimal facts by adding James’s own experience, which he likewise thought was a resurrection appearance of Jesus (43–77), and by appending the empty tomb as a separate “outsider” occurrence and referring to it as a “+ 1” argument, though not one of the minimal facts. When subsequently responding to Mike in the journal article “Minimal Facts Approach,” 24–25, I suggested the caveat that perhaps it was time to separate out three more facts that were more or less already implied in the list: the early date just mentioned, the centrality of the resurrection proclamation, and James’s experience. Often I had also separated the disciples’ life transformations for their willingness to die for these teachings. Actually, Mike and I had already included all four of these others in our coauthored work, with James being added as his own point, plus we had conflated the other three within these first four facts. The interested reader can check out examples of each of these “submerged” elements within our two chapters (3–4): the very early time element (52–53, 56, 63, 68, 221–23), the central importance of the message of Jesus’s resurrection (52, 56, 76), and the disciples’ life transformations to the extent of being willing to die for their faith (50, 59–60, 63, 68, 223–24). All told, it seemed like it is just perhaps time to move ahead and increase (or perhaps the operative term is simply to “unpack”) the list of minimal facts as done (or at least started) in other publications. As it turned out, Mike had also been thinking the same way and was interested in considering still other candidates, such as James’s experience (as we had already done previously), the bodily nature of the resurrection appearances, the group nature of some of the appearances, Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection, and even the empty tomb (our “+ 1” fact in Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 69–77). For these additional details on Mike’s thoughts here as well, see Licona, “In Reply,” 55–56 (see chap. 4, n. 2). As intimated, then, even more steps in this direction could still be taken. But the “6 + 1” configuration is enough for this study.

56 Nevertheless, the “6 + 1” probable facts conformation is the choice here. The empty tomb is an add-on that is not considered to be one of the minimal facts since it does not quite rise to the level of the others in terms of the overwhelming degree of scholarly acceptance.

Part 2

Jesus: The Preliminaries

6

The Existence of Jesus

Before entertaining any possibility of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, it would be helpful to inquire regarding the historical basis for Jesus’s existence. If the canonical New Testament as well as the earliest Christian, postapostolic writings were exempted from this study, would there still remain a sufficient quantity and quality of ancient non-Christian sources that witness to events from Jesus’s life, death, and possibly even his resurrection to ascertain his existence? Of course the canonical and postapostolic sources count as well, and most of this extended study is concerned with those texts. But can the non-Christian texts be enough to do the job?

In this chapter the “mythicist” debate in general will be introduced, zeroing in on some of the reasons why this discussion is almost always considered to be a dead end for the vast majority of specialists and other scholars trained in these areas.1 Next, some of the ancient non-Christian texts that are most widely respected by critical scholars will be reviewed. The heart of the chapter concerns the ancient historians, government officials, other Jewish and Gentile sources, the earliest gnostic sources,2 lost works, and some archaeological artifacts that potentially mention Jesus.

It should be noted carefully that this chapter is merely introductory. Other volumes carry out more detailed overviews containing more specific investigation of these matters.3 The overall idea here for a preliminary treatment is that, as prolegomena to a specific study of Jesus’s death and claims concerning his resurrection, some of these more initial matters (especially the more minor sources on the periphery), are not quite as crucial to our overall agenda.

The Jesus Mythicists

Even before the nineteenth-century German liberal scholars that we discussed earlier, other writers who were frequently untrained in relevant fields were nonetheless hypercritical of historical Jesus studies, whether they were liberal or conservative efforts, and attempted to attack almost any positive treatments. The English deists were good examples, as most scholarly volumes on this ill-fated movement will point out. Frequently despising the members of the clergy and especially doctrines such as sin, they were among the first bands of often angry-sounding and strident assailants of claims that Christianity was reasonable. As historian Peter Gay asserts, they sometimes went “beyond the bounds of common sense and good taste.”4 Although the vast majority of these amateur skeptics did not deny Jesus’s historical existence, they could nonetheless be quite radical.5

Albert Schweitzer remarked that among these early writers were “a few im-perfectly equipped free-lances” who attacked the views of others. However, when they could not find evidence for the position they wanted to argue, that was not a problem because “they had to supply it for themselves”—in other words, they invented “fiction”!6 A few decades later, the very skeptical German New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann commented, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.”7 In general, strong comments such as these on the untrained, unbridled writers have been common fare, whether the critiques came from liberal or conservative scholars.

For the last few decades of the twentieth century, critical scholars virtually ignored those popular writers who doubted severely or even denied that Jesus ever lived in history. However, of late, the shrill has grown considerably, perhaps even multiplying. This is largely due to the emergence of the Internet, the proliferation of blogs, as well as other electronic means, such as comments on conservative articles and blogs. Quite often appearing angry and even enraged, loaded with acidic language (which nonscholarly, especially conservative respondents are also fully capable of thus showcasing themselves), these arguments usually miss the mark by a mile, frequently built up by repetitions of old, tired statements that seem to appeal to no one but themselves. Yet they often engender hearty guffaws and other accolades from their like-minded comrades.

These nonspecialist, skeptical views have increased in popularity over the past few decades to the extent where, quite surprisingly, several prominent critical scholars have now reacted sternly to these “mythicists” as they have come to be called. Probably the most prominent responses have been written by two agnostic New Testament scholars, Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey. Both men testify that they are definitely non-Christians.8 Yet, their critiques of the mythicists are often withering, pointing out repeatedly where and why they have failed strictly on historical grounds. In return, they too have been subjected to unscholarly derision.

For Ehrman and the majority of critical scholars, the first problem is that mythicist writers are for the most part not scholars. After describing several of the better-known mythicists like Robert Price, Richard Carrier, G. A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and Frank Zindler, along with a few others, Ehrman remarks that only Price and Carrier are well trained in a relevant field.9 Even so, “of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity” who teach at major or minor accredited colleges, universities, and seminaries, “none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed.”10

Second, Ehrman asserts that most of their arguments are very poorly constructed, reasoned, and supported. After complimenting a couple of authors that he considers to be better than the others, Ehrman adds, “A number of other mythicists, however, do not offer anything resembling scholarship.” To the contrary, their views are often “sensationalist . . . so extravagant, so wrongheaded, and so poorly substantiated that it is no wonder that scholars do not take them seriously.”11

Quite humorously, Ehrman also notes what he considers another egregious problem. As expediency would have it, mythicists frequently like to whisk away with a wave of their hand some especially tough New Testament passages for them to explain, calling them interpolations. Ehrman refers to this repeated move as “the principle of convenience” and the “scholarship of convenience”! Making this even more ludicrous is that these arbitrary moves are made both without any evidence as well as against the strong evidence for the authenticity of the words usually deleted by the mythicists. Hence, Ehrman’s charge here encourages a smile.12

In sum, Ehrman attests, “It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves.”13 Then Ehrman follows up: “Established scholars continue to be dismissive,”14 adding that “as I’ve repeatedly indicated, the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even a toehold, among critical scholars of the Bible.”15

Maurice Casey’s book is more technical than Ehrman’s, and it also adds much more invective to his treatment of the mythicists. Similarly, he also provides an overview of about a dozen mythicists.16 He likewise finds that although a number of the mythicists claim to be scholars, their writings clearly indicate that this is untrue and, even with the best known ones, he said, “I would question their competence and qualifications.”17 Here are some major examples of better-known mythicists: Earl Doherty exhibits an “inability to read texts correctly.”18 While Carrier and Price possess good, scholarly credentials, Carrier exhibits too much unscholarly verbiage, while Price expresses “opinions which I consider to be utter falsehoods.”19

But Casey holds that there are a plethora of other serious problems among these mythicist writers and bloggers. Chief among them might be their altering of data (or, as Ehrman states, their constant proposals of textual interpolations) and, in at least one instance, their arguing a case “with confidence, regardless of whether it is correct or not.”20

Continuing Casey’s attack, the mythicists’ historical approaches and misunderstandings of serious research methods are appalling. They report and twist information to fit their agendas, such as arguing that Gnosticism was earlier than orthodox New Testament interpretation, or by “ludicrously” late dating the Gospels to accommodate their private assumptions. In these matters, they repeatedly misread and misinterpret ancient texts, as well as lack both background knowledge along with any sense of historical reality. All told, the mythicist writers are quite often proclaimed by Casey to be almost totally misleading, such that at least a few ought to admit they are simply writing fiction!21

More mythicist errors include often totally misapprehending what scholars are arguing and using grossly outdated and unscholarly works for some of their conclusions while not documenting many of their other sources, references, or reasons. Still more problems involve citing parallels that are not at all forerunners, citing a view out-of-context because it obviously appeals to them, misrepresenting scholarly views, and thinking that their comments stand by mere assertion alone.22 Moreover, the mythicist positions are often championed by “many blogs” that “are ignorant, opinionated, rude and malicious.”23

For Casey, the most aggravating tendency is the exceptionally common propensity for mythicists to take the absence of historical information that they deem should be present in New Testament texts, like Paul’s Epistles, and then argue that this deficiency indicates Paul was unaware of or did not care about such historical facts. Somehow, in the end, conclusions such as these are construed as Jesus not even existing at all! Moreover, Paul’s very existence is also questioned.24

Another of Casey’s more intriguing charges is that many mythicists argue the way they do because they were formerly fundamentalist Protestants or Catholics who have now abandoned their earlier faith.25 Nathan LaMontagne thinks that this may be Casey’s “most insightful conclusion.”26 Of course, the knife cuts both ways on this criticism too: being former fundamentalist Christians is definitely not a hard-and-fast rule for the mythicists as a group, for whom much of the rigidity, ungrounded conclusions, and anger are found in current practitioners who were never former Christians. It could well be deeper than prior religious beliefs, as in personality factors for example.

At any rate, Casey concludes his critique this way:

I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people. Most of them are former fundamentalist Christians who were not properly aware of critical scholarship then, and after conversion to atheism, are not properly aware of critical scholarship now. They frequently confuse any New Testament scholarship with Christian fundamentalism.27

Some of Casey’s reviewers wonder if he would have been even more successful in this volume if he would have avoided all the vitriol.28 Others conclude that nothing Casey alleged in a well-argued volume will affect the mythicists anyway. For Nathan LaMontagne, perhaps this lack of change is due to the mythicists’ desire “to provoke arguments and attract attention.”29

Of course, Ehrman and Casey are not the only critical scholars who have criticized contemporary mythicists. But much of the credibility of these two authors is derived from their status as agnostic non-Christians who specialize in New Testament studies. When Van Voorst’s detailed volume Jesus outside the New Testament was published in 2000, many fewer detailed critiques of the mythicists were available. Early in his text he begins with a section titled “Did Jesus Really Exist?” where he notes that “some readers may be surprised or shocked” to find that more than one hundred books and essays “in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus.”30 This potential shock may seem like a drop in the bucket today if we were to count Internet sources such as blogs, which Van Voorst had already noted.31

Then, after a survey of relevant radical writings back to the Enlightenment,32 Van Voorst briefly levels seven main critiques at the mythicists. Sounding much like Ehrman and Casey, he mentions the tendency to take silence in the New Testament Epistles as lack of knowledge of the historical Jesus, late dating the Gospels, and pointing out that the existence of difficult questions does not “prove nonexistence.” Further, no first- or second-century pagans or Jews ever questioned Jesus’s existence; thus, these skeptics are far too critical concerning at least the strongest of the pagan references to the historical Jesus, along with the presence of deeper, “highly tendentious, anti-religious” views on their part. Finally, Van Voorst asserts that the mythicists ignore other, far better evidenced options, especially when their own theses so frequently “have little independent corroborative evidence.”33

In 2009, a rare five-way dialogue on the historical Jesus was published.34 For our purposes in this section, it is the interaction with mythicist Bob Price that is the most revealing regarding not only how others responded to him but also their view toward mythicist scholars in general. Intriguingly, a fair amount of animosity was expressed toward Price in this dialogue beyond what is commonly seen among critical scholars.35

Bob Price identifies his position this way: “I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus.” Speaking positively of the “Christ of faith,” he states further, “I think it most probable that there was never any other.”36 He begins by defending the principle of analogy and then provides a brief history of several key aspects of the Christ-myth thesis, including the mention of dying and rising gods and mythic hero accounts in the ancient world. Then he concludes his initial essay with the words “But I should think the burden of proof lies with the one who would affirm such a [historical] Jesus.”37

In response, skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan asserts that even if some of Price’s charges were true, it does not follow that Jesus never lived. Further, against Price’s suggestion that there are parallels between the ancient dying and rising gods and the story of Jesus, Crossan retorts that these alternate accounts have “nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus—at least not for Paul.”38

Luke Timothy Johnson begins his response to Price with this accusation: “Robert M. Price gets Jesus to the vanishing point by the simple expedient of denying all the evidence that makes him visible.” Thus, “the burden of proof has been met well enough . . . to counter Price’s own act of historical prestidigitation.” Johnson’s chief idea here is that there is plenty of evidence to establish the historicity of Jesus, but rather than dealing with it, Price merely whisks it away.39

James D. G. Dunn begins in an even more direct and forceful manner: “Gosh! So there are still serious scholars who put forward the view that the whole account of Jesus’s doings and teachings are a later myth foisted on an unknown, obscure historical figure.” Then he adds, “Price is content with the explanation that it all began ‘with a more or less vague savior myth.’ Sad, really.”40

The chief problem, according to Dunn, is that Price and other mythicists are “ignoring what everyone else in the business regards as primary data” to choose “less plausible hypotheses to explain other data that inconveniences his thesis.” Here Dunn mentions 1 Cor 15:3 along with Gal 1:19 as going back “within two or three years of the putative events.” But choosing these lesser views devalues the remainder of Price’s arguments. Dunn ends with a last jab at Price: if his effort signals “the state of health of the Jesus-myth thesis, I can’t see much life in it. His thesis would be better retitled ‘The Jesus Myth—a Thesis at Vanishing Point.’”41

Lastly, Darrell Bock mentions historical challenges for Price to explain, such as the early resurrection tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, the existence of Jesus’s brother James, and the New Testament Epistles all pointing to Jesus’s very recent life, along with the lack of any parallels from the dying and rising gods or the hero archetypes as examples of some serious issues that plague the mythicist’s position.42

Besides this important dialogue edited by Beilby and Eddy, other direct encounters and dialogues between mythicists and New Testament scholars have also occurred, often through the writing of blogs and subsequent comments. However, it appears that the majority of these more spirited replies usually emanate from the mythicists, who sometimes respond aggressively and in larger numbers to their usually much more scholarly accusers as the former utilize their favorite genre of the Internet!43

The final and most crucial matter of all in terms of this chapter also needs to be emphasized briefly. For all the many apparent shortcomings of the mythicist writers, the chief issue concerns whether Jesus actually walked and talked in time-space history. If he did, then it should be rather obvious that anyone who states or thinks otherwise is simply mistaken. Similarly, for those who think that while Jesus may actually have lived, we either cannot be sure or can only know very little about him, it is also the case that determining a larger amount of data regarding the historical Jesus would show otherwise in these instances as well. So the issue of there being more generally known historical facts about Jesus dominates the majority of this chapter and, to some extent, the remainder of this book too. So, did Jesus exist as a historical figure?

Non-Christian Sources for Jesus

Critical scholars often elevate and especially recognize the historicity of two ancient non-Christian sources concerning Jesus and early Christianity: the Jewish-turned-Roman historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. The wide recognition and approval for these two historians among critical scholars is outstanding.44 As Craig Evans notes, Josephus is crucial because “he is an early and geographically proximate witness.”45 Other ancient writers are also accepted by many of these same critical scholars.46

What can we learn from non-Christian (largely secular) sources regarding details of the life and death of Jesus? Do any of these non-Christian texts mention supernatural items, such as Jesus’s deity, miracles, or his resurrection appearances? Is additional information provided pertaining to the early Christian movement? There are numerous ancient, non-Christian sources dating roughly from the crucifixion until approximately 150 years after Jesus’s death. There is no magical stopping point after which sources are no longer credible, though this still would be a decent time span for the ancient world.47 We will move, successively, from ancient historians to government officials, other Jewish and Gentile sources, early gnostic sources, and then lost works that speak of Jesus.

Historians

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. AD 55–120) was a Roman historian who lived during the reigns of ten different Roman emperors. He has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome, an individual generally acknowledged among scholars for his moral “integrity and essential goodness.”48 Tacitus is best known for two major works—the Annals and the Histories. The former is thought to have included eighteen books and the latter twelve, for a total of thirty books.49 The Annals cover the period from Augustus’s death in AD 14 to Nero’s death in AD 68, while the Histories begin after Nero’s death and proceed to that of Domitian in AD 96.

Tacitus recorded at least one reference to Christ and two to early Christianity, one in each of his major works. The most important is in the Annals, which were written about AD 115–120, and it recounts the great fire in Rome during the reign of Nero:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed. (Ann. 15.44)50

In this important account, Tacitus reports or implies several items concerning Christ and the Christians living in Rome in the 60s. Chronologically, we learn the following information: Christians were named after their founder, Christus (from the Latin),51 who was put to death by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus (also from the Latin) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (AD 14–37). Christ’s death put an end to this “most mischievous superstition” for a brief time, but then it broke out anew, especially in Judea, where the teaching had originated.

Further, Christus’s followers carried his doctrine to Rome. When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (AD 54–68), the emperor placed the blame on the Christians who lived in the city. Tacitus reports that this group was hated for their abominations. These Christians were arrested after pleading guilty, and many were convicted and blamed with “hatred for mankind.” They were mocked and tortured, including being “nailed to crosses,” burnt to death, or killed by animals. Due to these atrocities perpetrated against them, the Roman populace actually developed compassion for the Christians, as per Tacitus’s observation that, rather than furthering the common public good, these horrific punishments were done simply “to glut one man’s cruelty.”

Several of these items are of interest. Ancient classical and later New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce notes that Tacitus had to receive his information from some source(s), which may have included a formal Roman record to which Tacitus had access because of his “official standing” with the Roman government. It may even have been contained in one of Pilate’s reports to the emperor.52 While this of course could be true, the source(s) could also have been text that would today be considered much less spectacular! It is almost sheer speculation to hypothesize any particular conclusions regarding the specific nature of Tacitus’s source(s). However, a couple of early writers do claim to know the contents of such a Roman report, as will be noted below.

Even mythicist G. A. Wells acknowledges that if Tacitus had obtained his information from Roman records of Jesus’s crucifixion, then this would be “of great value.”53 Yet, Wells argues that Tacitus’s material is not independent but derived from Christian testimony.54 This latter comment also appears to be a difficult argument to establish, since Tacitus’s material in Ann. 15.44 plainly mentions items found nowhere in either the New Testament or demonstrably earlier Christian material. Further, it appears that there is a bit of a conceptual problem here. Even if some of Tacitus’s research consisted of interviews with believers, how would that prove that it was not independent or even objective for that matter?55

What of the potentially independent comments? This could include matters like Nero blaming the great fire in Rome on the Christians, that these believers were despised in the city of Rome, or that they were punished severely by Nero, including being torn apart by dogs, set on fire to become human torches, and being nailed to crosses. Even Tacitus’s follow-up comment that the Roman views toward Christians changed as they witnessed these atrocities being done to people on account of Nero’s sadistic urges is an intriguing conclusion to his report. Just because we do not know where Tacitus obtained this material, it does not follow automatically that it was either not derived independently or that it is of little value.

Also of interest is the historical context for Jesus’s death being linked specifically to both Pilate and Tiberius. J. N. D. Anderson wonders about a possible implication drawn from Tacitus’s comment concerning the message of Jesus’s resurrection. It could be the case that when Tacitus adds that the Judean superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out again afterward, the Roman historian could potentially be bearing indirect testimony to the early report that the Christ who had been crucified had afterwards been proclaimed to have risen from the grave and appeared to his followers.56 Of course, this is at best a slight hint and there is no way to know of it for sure.

A few relevant sidenotes concern the mode of torture employed against some of these early Christians. Besides burning and being attacked by animals, Tacitus relates that a number of believers were crucified by being “nailed to crosses.” Not only was this the same method that had been imposed by the Romans on Jesus, but tradition reports that Nero was also responsible for crucifying the apostle Peter as well, though upside down. Even the specific use of nails on these Christians is a significant Roman reference to the predominant means of crucifying its victims and may even have been done as a parody of Jesus’s death.57 The ensuing compassion aroused in the Roman people who saw this wanton slaughter is also noteworthy.

It is commonly thought that a second relevant statement made by Tacitus is preserved in a summary or recounting of an original text from Tacitus’s Histories (probably from book 5). Although presently lost (as is much of the Histories), the portion is mentioned in church historian Sulpicius Severus’s Chronicles, written approximately AD 400–403. Severus comments on the fall of Jerusalem along with the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Roman army during the Jewish War with Rome (AD 66–73).

While Tacitus’s original words may be lost, Severus’s work informs us that the Pharisees defended the temple “most boldly” until it fell, recounting that many Jewish defenders died in the effort. But the Roman commander Titus thought that, by destroying the temple, he might thereby rid himself of both the Jews and the Christians (since the latter proceeded from the former) even though, as Severus states, the two groups were “contrary to each other.” Still, this defeat and “final captivity of the Jews” was due to the divine will indicating to the world that the Jews were being punished “for the impious hands which they laid upon Christ.”58

This reference indicates that Tacitus was also aware of the continuing influence of Christians back in their initial place of origin in the region of Judea, as per his statement in the Annals, rather than only in the context of their presence in Rome alone. Of course, it is presumably Severus who made the additional application regarding the judgment of the Jews with respect to Jesus’s fate. Granted, these facts are hardly earthshaking, yet the New Testament does not narrate the events of the fall of Jerusalem or the destruction of the temple beyond the so-called Olivet Discourse and another hint or so. But this indicates that the extrabiblical data for Jesus and the early church were frequently not drawn from New Testament writings and thus provide some additional background confirmation.

According to contemporary scholars, then, Tacitus is the first of our two most crucial extrabiblical, secular sources for historical information regarding Jesus. His first text, and by far the more crucial of the two, is more detailed than that of most other writers; links Jesus firmly to the time when Emperor Tiberius ruled in Rome and Pontius Pilate in Judea; and has some knowledge of Jesus’s teaching, his death at the hands of Pilate, as well as the torture and death of Christians in Rome where the message had spread. While we do not know Tacitus’s sources, given that he was in a position to discover the details of other events, one would expect him to do likewise here.

Josephus

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born a few years after Jesus died, in AD 37 or 38, and died in 97. He was born into a Jewish priestly family and became a Pharisee at the age of nineteen. After surviving a battle against the Romans, he served Commander Vespasian in Jerusalem. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, he moved to Rome, where he became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. As one can imagine, this contributed to some unpopular feelings toward him from his Jewish countrymen.59

One of Josephus’s major works, the Antiquities, provides some valuable but disputed historical evidence concerning Jesus. Written in approximately the early to mid-90s, it dates earlier than the testimonies of the Roman historians and is one of the only first-century sources for Jesus.60 Josephus speaks about many persons and events of first-century Palestine and makes two references to Jesus. The second one is very brief and in the context is speaking of a reference to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”61

Though this latter statement seems so brief as not to be overly helpful, this is not the case. For instance, it establishes a close connection between Jesus and James as well as the belief of some that Jesus was the Messiah. Most importantly for our discussion of the mythicists, it indicates clearly that Jesus was alive only a short time before Josephus’s writing, since James was as well. This is one of the reasons why the mythicists have to try plainly gymnastic stunts to rid themselves of this text.

The earlier reference, usually termed the Testimonium Flavianum, is easily the most important as well as the most debated, since some of the words appear to be due to a Christian interpolation. A key portion of Josephus’s quotation reports the following: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him” (Ant. 18.3). Commentators often take a few different scholarly positions on this statement. Since Josephus was a non-Christian Jew, it is unlikely that he would have written about Jesus in such lofty and glowing terms. Some scholars still support the authenticity of the original reading, though with the advent of literary criticism, this is now certainly a minority view.62 But while Origen reports that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah,63 Eusebius still quotes the debated passage, including the words above, in the early fourth century.64

The majority view among scholarly commentators is that the largest portion of the citation belongs to Josephus himself, while the distinctly “Christian” phrases are due to a later interpolator. Some simply delete the words that they take to be questionable, while others suggest modifying the words so that Josephus merely reports what Christians believed instead of identifying his own personal position. This mediating position has the double advantage of both allowing that most of the words in the passage belonged to Josephus (which is consistent with the Josephan style and word usage noted by many scholars), while maintaining that Christians then added or edited the phrases with the Christian content. Some far more radical scholars tend to reject the entire passage.

There are good indications that the majority of Josephus’s first text is genuine. No textual evidence stands against the passage and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence in favor of this statement about Jesus. These two reasons thus make it a difficult comment to either totally reject or ignore. Further, the second reference to James being the brother of the so-called Christ, according to most scholars, seems to demand an earlier comment that introduces Jesus to the readers. Otherwise, the lone comment is too abrupt. Additionally, leading Josephus scholars have testified that this first portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian.65

For example, eminent Jewish authority Joseph Klausner speaks for the majority of scholars in accepting both of Josephus’s passages as genuine, minus the seeming Christianized words in the longer reading. He thus rejects both the other positions that the text is totally genuine, as well as the equally radical view that expurgates all of the words. He especially finds that there are insufficient good reasons to take the latter view, while ignoring reasons such as those just listed above in favor of the edited text. Plus Klausner adds another reason: the words about Jesus parallel those that Josephus states about John the Baptist. Along with many other scholars, Klausner dates the chief Christian interpolation(s) to the early third century since Origen apparently did not know of the added text just a little earlier, while Eusebius quoted the debated words only a few decades later.66

For reasons such as these, then, we conclude that there are stronger arguments for accepting that middle position that favors Josephus’s statement about Jesus while modifying the most questionable words. In fact, it is quite possible that these more objectionable comments may even be accurately ascertained. Similarly to many other researchers, Klausner suggests that the following words were the ones that were added: “if it be lawful to call him a man. . . . He was the Messiah . . . for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine Prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” Klausner concludes that it is unnecessary to reject the phrase “For he was a doer of wonderful works,” since “Josephus himself was a firm believer in miracles.”67

An additional development occurred in 1972 when Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem released the results of a study on an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus’s statement about Jesus. It includes a different and briefer rendering of the entire passage, including changes in the key words listed above:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.68

None of the disputed comments in the longer Antiquities quotation remains unchanged. The initial problematic words “if it be lawful to call him a man” have been dropped completely, recounting only that Jesus was a wise man. The statement “he was a doer of wonderful works” has also been deleted, though as we saw with Klausner’s comment, that is less problematic than the others.

Instead of the words “He was the Christ” we find “he was perhaps the Messiah.” The phrase “he appeared to them the third day” now reads, “They [the disciples] reported that he had appeared to them,” which is an entirely true statement voiced by the first-century witnesses. Lastly, the statement that “the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him” has been drastically reduced to “concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders,” which could describe the Messiah rather than Jesus himself.

Some scholars have viewed positively this Arabic version, thinking that it may indeed contain the original words of Josephus before any Christian interpolations, or at least be closer to the original rendering. While two of the questionable phrases are completely deleted, the others are carefully qualified. As commented by Schlomo Pines and David Flusser of the Hebrew University, it is quite plausible that none of the doubts as to whether Josephus wrote the original words even applies to the Arabic text, since this version would have less likely been adjusted by the church. Additionally, Flusser notes that a further earmark of authenticity may be that the Arabic version omits the accusation that the Jews were to blame for Jesus’s death, as included in the original reading.69

After an in-depth investigation of the question, James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary explains that Josephus’s original version is “both an interpolation and a redaction.”70 He still finds three reasons why Josephus wrote most of the passage: some of the remaining words are very difficult to attribute to a Christian writer; the passage fits both grammatically and historically in Josephus’s context; and the second brief reference to Jesus in Antiquities appears to presuppose an earlier mention.71

Charlesworth also concludes that the Arabic recension is basically accurate, even if there are still a few subtle Christian alterations. (As an aside, it still could be contended that the words “he was perhaps the Messiah” followed by the comment regarding the prophets could be questioned.) Charlesworth ends his comments on this passage with an exceptionally strong conclusion: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus,” providing “corroboration of the gospel account.”72

Returning to the three options mentioned above, Van Voorst very helpfully provides a list of reasons favoring each of the three main views on the Testimonium: that the entire passage is authentic, that the entire text is bogus, as well as the majority view that Josephus wrote most of the passage minus about three Christian additions.73

Very briefly, the “totally authentic” position is not held by many scholars today. It was the traditional view before the rise of modern literary criticism and was even favored by German liberal church historian Adolf von Harnack. Josephus states similar kindly things about other great biblical personages, such as Solomon, Daniel, and John the Baptist. Further, there are words or phrases that Christians probably would not have used concerning Jesus, such as a positive use of the term pleasure or calling Christians a “tribe.” Other phrases or sentences are characteristically “Josephan” in style.74 These reasons make some sense, but nothing in this positive argument requires that the entire passage was unchanged from its original form.

The second “totally inauthentic” position is supported by the Testimonium not fitting into the overall subject matter of book 18 of the Antiquities. Also, the admission of some Christian editing raises tough questions, which “suggests that the whole passage may be a Christian forgery.” The main argument against authenticity is that earlier Christian apologists such as Irenaeus and Tertullian failed to cite this passage, even though its edited form would still have been quite helpful in discussions with unbelievers. Eusebius is the first to quote this text, almost three centuries after the crucifixion, which this text supports.75 Of these arguments, the last one is clearly the strongest as well as the most puzzling: why would Josephus not have been cited for support, given that he was an unbeliever before Eusebius?

Van Voorst finds seven reasons to support the third view that the Testimonium was mostly authentic with a few editorial changes by Christians. First, it explains why Jesus is mentioned by Josephus at all. Second, the proposed reconstruction reads very smoothly. Third, the reconstruction fits better with Josephus having introduced Jesus before the stronger reading in Ant. 20.9, which seems to presuppose some initial mention of someone as important as “the so-called Christ.” Fourth, the proposed changes make Josephus’s compliments fit better with the nice things he states about other persons.

Fifth, the reconstructed passage fits better with the more neutral Arabic text of Josephus discovered in 1971, which resembles fairly closely the proposed reconstruction. Sixth, the reconstruction makes the text parallel Josephus’s positive treatment of John the Baptist in Ant. 18.5.2. Seventh, the reconstructed passage explains both the seeming Christianized statements as well as the clearly Josephan ones, both of which are present. This is the only position of the three that holds that both Jewish and Christian wording is present. It might be added here that this passage has great manuscript support, while the totally negative view has “no manuscript support.”76 Of the seven positive reasons here, numbers three, five, and seven are all very strong, including the manuscript support.

The best conclusion seems strongly to favor the position that Josephus did indeed write about Jesus not only in the second, brief statement concerning James but also in the longer, earlier Testimonium. The evidence points to Josephus’s general composition of this passage, with the deletion or modification of a number of key phrases which probably were interpolated by later Christians, especially after Josephus’s comments about other great men and, most significantly, John the Baptist.

As far as which position is held most prominently by scholars, few would say that the first view of mostly full authenticity is an option today. Regarding the last two positions of the reconstructed passage and the total rejection of the Testimonium, the dean of Josephus scholars, Louis Feldman, judges that the reconstruction view is far more popular. Feldman estimates quite unofficially that the number who hold the interpolation view above could outnumber those who reject the text entirely by as high a margin as a 5:1 ratio!77 Of course, we do not determine truth by a head count, but coming from a guess from the top scholar in the field, the count is still significant for where scholars think the best arguments lie.

If the questionable portions of the Testimonium Flavianum were altered in accord with Joseph Klausner’s suggestions or in line with the Arabic version, what historical items may be ascertained from this important statement? First and foremost, Jesus existed in time-space history. He was known as a wise and virtuous man who was recognized for his good conduct, including his reported miracles. He was known as a teacher and had many disciples not only among the Jews but even among the Greeks. Pilate condemned him to die by crucifixion. His disciples may have reported at least their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead and that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion. Consequently, the disciples continued to proclaim his teachings. Jesus was called the Messiah by some (see below), concerning whom the Old Testament prophets spoke of and predicted wonders. Basically, the picture that emerges from Josephus is one that Christians would recognize from the New Testament.78

Van Voorst argues further that Josephus’s source for this material was independent and not adapted from Christian writings either directly or indirectly. He notes especially that the way Josephus uses the title “Christ,” or the words wise man and pleasure, the notion that Jesus won over Greeks, and “love” as the basis for the on-going success of Jesus’s mission, all differ from the way these ideas or words are utilized in the New Testament. This information probably came from interviews while he lived in Palestine.79

Josephus’s second very brief comment in Ant. 20.9 relates that Jesus had a brother, who is identified as “James, the brother of the so-called Christ.” Without much of a discussion or many details, Josephus reports that James was stoned to death by the Jewish authorities. Reported as a recent event, one could only conclude that Jesus had also lived recently and that some considered him to be the Messiah.80

There is nothing overly sensational in such a list of reported historical data from a Jewish historian. It would be natural for a wise and virtuous man like Jesus to have a following, though readers might be surprised by his crucifixion at the command of Pilate. These are key events that one might expect a historian to mention. Even if the original account included Jesus’s disciples reporting Jesus’s resurrection appearances, the belief at least would have an authentic ring to it. Josephus, like many historians today, would simply be repeating the claims made by others, even as he later calls Jesus “the so-called Christ.” These items could have been fairly well known in first-century Palestine anyway or from the New Testament itself. That his disciples would then spread his teachings would be a natural consequence. The death by stoning of his brother James is a later curious addition by Josephus, but one which adds to the historical picture.

Josephus presents an important account of several major facts about Jesus and the origins of early Christianity. In spite of some question marks here and there regarding the exact wording of the longer comment in Ant. 18.3, by far the majority of contemporary historians view the bulk of his statements as providing probable and valuable attestation of some of the foremost items in Jesus’s public ministry.81 Josephus’s second, briefer reference regarding “James the brother of the so-called Christ,” in Ant. 20.9, is even more solidly held by scholars with virtually no dissent. As Yamauchi summarizes, “Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage.”82

Suetonius

Another Roman historian who also makes one very brief reference to Jesus and another equally brief comment on the Christians in Rome is Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas. Little is known about him except that he was the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (r. AD 117–138) and that he had access to the imperial records.83 The first reference occurs in Suetonius’s book on Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54). Writing about the same time as Tacitus,84 Suetonius remarks concerning Claudius: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.”85

Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out within a large Jewish community in Rome during the year AD 49. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city. Incidentally, this statement is confirmed by Acts 18:2, where Paul meets a Jewish couple from Pontus named Aquila and Priscilla who had recently left Italy because Claudius had demanded that all the Jews must leave Rome. Translator Robert Graves notes that “Chrestus” is a variant spelling of “Christ,” and many other commentators agree as well. (Note that Suetonius’s spelling is virtually the same as Tacitus’s Latin spelling, Christus.)86

The second, also very brief reference from Suetonius is reminiscent of Tacitus’s comment that the Christians were tortured by Emperor Nero in the aftermath of the fire in the city of Rome: “After the great fire at Rome. . . . Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.”87

Few reports of any historical significance may be derived from the two references by Suetonius. If the majority of commentators is correct about the name “Chrestus” referring to Jesus Christ, the reference to Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome may have involved the mistaken inference that it was this Christ who lived in Rome and was causing the Jews to make the uproar in that city. Whether it was supposedly by his presence or by virtue of his teachings is not explained.

The second reference appears to be quite similar to the longer statement by Tacitus, including the use of the word mischievous to describe the Christian beliefs, raising the question of whether Tacitus or another common source for both authors (perhaps an imperial Roman record of some sort; see above) was Suetonius’s reference. The term Christians is also utilized to identify this group as followers of Christ’s teachings.88

Thallus

The death of Jesus may have been mentioned in ancient secular history many years before Tacitus, Josephus, or Suetonius ever wrote a single word. This particular reference may even predate our earliest Gospel. Perhaps as early as AD 52, a historian named Thallus wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Thallus’s work has been lost, but it was known to a Christian historian named Julius Africanus, who lived and wrote his world history, Chronography, around AD 220.89 It is debated whether Thallus could possibly be the same person referred to by Josephus as a wealthy Samaritan who was made a freedman by Emperor Tiberius and who loaned money to Herod Agrippa I, though Bruce thinks that this identification is unlikely.90

In speaking of Jesus’s crucifixion and the darkness that covered the land of the eastern Mediterranean world during this event, Africanus found a reference in the writings of Thallus that dealt with such a cosmic report. But continuing the somewhat roundabout nature of the tale, Africanus’s work has likewise been lost, although his citation of Thallus’s work was preserved by a much later historian, Georgius Syncellus, in his Chronicle, which was written about AD 800. Therefore, as best as we can determine, we have Thallus’s original statement from the first century as quoted by Syncellus.91

There are a couple of other questions to answer here, as mythicist G. A. Wells properly points out. Julius Africanus does not tell us if Thallus knew of and was speaking directly of the event of Jesus’s crucifixion, or if he was simply speaking of some sort of cosmic event, such as an eclipse, from approximately that time. We also do not know how independent Thallus’s report may have been. Of course, if Thallus was speaking of Jesus’s crucifixion, this text is immensely important.92 Wells has raised some good questions.

When did Thallus write his history? Though rather a convoluted answer, French skeptical scholar Maurice Goguel explains it this way: from fragments of his lost work, Thallus is known to have written of an event that occurred in approximately AD 30, but he must have written before 221, when Africanus quoted him. Judging from the normal limits of longevity at that time, as well as a further hint provided by Eusebius, Thallus is thought to have died about AD 60. Hence, Goguel explains why scholars often place the date of his history at about AD 50–52.93 Van Voorst concurs that this is the date that is “accepted by most scholars.”94 Even amid all the exceptionally late dating that often plagues the mythicists as a whole, Wells dates Thallus to the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century.95

In the quotation of Africanus found in Syncellus, Africanus asserts, “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”96 So Julius Africanus objected to Thallus’s rationalization concerning the darkness that fell on the land apparently at the time of the crucifixion because an eclipse could not take place during the time of the full moon, as was the case during the Jewish Passover season.97 But Wells raises a fair question about this testimony. Africanus only implies that Thallus linked the darkness to Jesus’s crucifixion, but we are not specifically told if Jesus is mentioned in Thallus’s original history at all.98

Van Voorst argues that the predominant historical data favor Thallus’s knowledge of Jesus’s crucifixion. It could have been otherwise, but of course we cannot be sure about this. But Africanus was a careful researcher and seems to address Thallus’s objection that the crucifixion darkness was simply a natural event. Africanus, in turn, responds that God brought about the darkness.99

If this is a correct assessment and Thallus’s brief statement refers to Jesus’s crucifixion, then the report indicates that the Christian gospel, or at least an account of Jesus’s crucifixion, was known in the Mediterranean region as early as the middle of the first century AD. This also brings to mind the presence of Christian teachings in Rome as mentioned by Tacitus and Suetonius. There was a widespread darkness in the land, with the implication being that it took place during Jesus’s crucifixion. Further, we have here an important indication that unbelievers such as Thallus offered rationalistic explanations for certain Christian teachings or for supernatural claims quite quickly after their initial proclamation, a point to which we will return below. The basic idea here is reminiscent of Matthew’s comment (Matt 28:15) that the story that Jesus’s disciples had stolen his dead body had also traveled around the Mediterranean at an early date.

Government Officials

Pliny the Younger

A Roman administrator and author who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor in the early second century, Pliny the Younger was the nephew and adopted son of the historian known as Pliny the Elder. The younger Pliny is best known for his letters (Epistulae), and Bruce refers to him as “one of the world’s great letter writers, whose letters . . . have attained the status of literary classics.”100

Ten books of Pliny’s correspondences remain extant today. The tenth book, written around AD 112, speaks about Christianity in the province of Bithynia and also provides some reports about Jesus (Ep. 10.96).101 Pliny observes that the Christian influence was so strong in his area that the pagan temples had been nearly deserted, attendance at pagan festivals severely decreased, and few purchased sacrificial animals. Because of the inflexibility of the Christians and the emperor’s prohibition against political association, Governor Pliny took action against the Christians. Yet because he was unsure how to deal with believers and if there should be any distinctions in treatment, or if repentance made any difference, he wrote to Emperor Trajan (r. AD 98–117) to explain his approach.

Pliny dealt personally with the Christians who were turned over to him. He interrogated them, inquiring if they were indeed believers. If they answered in the affirmative he asked them two more times under the threat of death. If they continued firm in their belief, he ordered them to be executed. Sometimes the punishment included torture to obtain the desired information, as in the case of two female slaves who were deaconesses in the church. If the person was a Roman citizen, they were sent for trial to the emperor in Rome. If they denied being Christians or had disavowed their faith in the past, they “repeated after me an invocation to the Gods, and offered adoration . . . to your [Trajan’s] image.” Afterwards they “finally cursed Christ.” Pliny explained that his purpose in doing all this was that “multitudes may be reclaimed from error.”

Pliny’s letter is rather lengthy, but we will quote the portion which pertains directly to an account of early Christian worship of Christ:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. (Ep. 10.96)

At this point Pliny adds that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, ages, and genders as well as people from both the city and the country.

From Pliny’s letter we glean several more items regarding Jesus and early Christianity. Christ was worshipped as deity by early believers. Pliny refers late in his letter to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as “excessive superstition” and “contagious superstition,” which once again is reminiscent of the words of both Tacitus and Suetonius. Jesus’s ethical teachings were reflected in the oath taken by Christians never to be guilty of a number of sins, as specified in the letter.

There is a potential or even a probable reference to Christ’s institution of the Lord’s Supper and the Christian celebration of the “love feast” in Pliny’s remark about believers gathering to partake of ordinary food. The reference here may well allude to the accusation that believers were suspected of ritual murder and drinking of blood during these meetings. There is also a possible reference to Sunday worship in Pliny’s statement that Christians met “on a certain fixed day” before dawn.

Concerning early Christianity, Pliny’s method of dealing with believers is on display here, from their identification to their interrogation, chance to recant, and execution. Freedom was granted to those who denied being Christians and were willing to worship the gods and the emperor. Interestingly, Pliny reports that true believers could not be forced to worship the gods or the emperor.

Christian worship involved singing hymns. The early hour of these hymns probably facilitated a normal work day for worshippers. These Christians apparently formed a typical cross section of society in Bithynia since Pliny notes that they consisted of all classes, ages, localities, and genders. There were apparently recognized positions in the church, as illustrated by the mention of the two female deaconesses who were tortured for information. While Pliny does not relate many facts about Jesus, he does provide a look at an early example of Christian worship. Believers were meeting regularly and worshipping Jesus.

Emperor Trajan

Pliny’s inquiry received a reply, which is published along with his letters, although Emperor Trajan’s response is much briefer:

The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our Gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations [sic] without the accuser’s name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age. (Ep. 10.97)

Trajan responds that Pliny was generally acting properly. If confessed Christians persisted in their faith, they must be punished. However, three restrictions are placed on Pliny. First, Christians should not be sought out or tracked down. Second, repentance coupled with worship of the gods sufficed to clear a person of wrongdoing (or “wrong-believing”). Previously, Pliny expressed doubts as to whether a person should be punished in spite of repentance and only recounts the pardoning of persons who had willingly given up their beliefs before questioning. Third, Pliny was not to honor any lists of Christians given to him if the accuser did not name himself.

These conditions imposed by Emperor Trajan give us some insight into early official Roman views about Christianity. While persecution was certainly an issue and many Christians died without committing any actual crimes, it is interesting that, contrary to popular opinion, the first century was not the worst period of persecution for believers. Trajan’s restrictions on Pliny at least indicate that it was not a wholesale slaughter. Nonetheless, persecution was real and many died for their faith.

Emperor Hadrian

The existence of trials for Christians, such as the ones mentioned by Pliny, is also confirmed by another historical reference to early Christians. Serenius Granianus, proconsul of Asia, also wrote to Emperor Hadrian concerning the treatment of believers. Hadrian replied to Minucius Fundanus, Granianus’s successor as Asian proconsul, and issued a statement against those who would accuse Christians falsely or without due process. In the letter, preserved by early fourth-century church historian Eusebius, Hadrian asserts:

I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if any one [sic] would bring an accusation, that you should examine it. (Hist. eccl. 4.9)102

Somewhat similar to Trajan, Hadrian also explains that Christians who are found guilty after an examination should be judged “according to the heinousness of the crime.” Yet, if the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who made inaccurate charges were to be punished themselves.

From Hadrian’s letter we learn that Christians were frequently reported as lawbreakers in the region of Asia and were punished in various ways. Like Trajan, Hadrian also encouraged a certain amount of temperance and ordered that Christians not be harassed. If Christians were indeed guilty, as indicated by careful examination, punishments could well be in order. However, no undocumented charges were to be brought against believers and those making such false charges were to be punished themselves. The last point particularly indicates that even though Hadrian’s religious beliefs were presumably otherwise, he was dealing more fairly than the rulers in the Roman Empire were often credited.

Other Jewish Sources: Mishnah and Talmud

Charles K. Barrett provides a couple of initial examples from Jewish sources. The first is taken from the “Eighteen Benedictions,” where Benediction 12 is a prayer that dates to the late first century and originates among the Sanhedrin. It pronounces judgment upon “the Nazarenes and the minim” (i.e., Jewish-Christians), asking that they perish “and be blotted out from the book of life.” It is clear that these believers were still present in post-70 Judea after the devastating Jewish-Roman war.103

Another instance, mentioned by Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner, is a statement from Rabbi Eliezer thought to have been made in the last decade of the first century, though recorded later. While not mentioning Jesus by name, the remark seems to speak of him. Eliezer’s referred to “a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray.” After admonishing the people not to follow this man, Eliezer remarks, “If he says that he is God he is a liar.”104

The Jews passed along a large amount of oral tradition from generation to generation. This material was organized according to subject matter by Rabbi Akiba before his death in AD 135. His work was then revised by his student Rabbi Meir. The project was completed by about 200 by Rabbi Judah and is known as the Mishnah. Next, the Gemaras were written, which provided ancient commentary on the Mishnah. The combination of the Mishnah plus the Gemaras form the Talmud.105

The subject of rabbinic sources that may mention Jesus is one that engenders a wide range of scholarly views. Several key issues are involved here as well, such as the dating of the comments (especially since some of them are quite late), if Jesus is even being referred to at all in the immediate contexts, and, perhaps most of all, who the pseudonyms are addressing, since they involve many if not most of the remarks.106

It would be expected that if any information about Jesus was included in these works, the most reliable comments from the Talmud would come from the earliest period of compilation—AD 70 to 200, known as the Tannaitic period. A very significant and frequently discussed quotation using Jesus’s name is found in b. Sanhedrin 43a and dates from just this early period:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!107

At least from initial appearances, this comment seems to be another brief account of Jesus’s death. These references to Jesus being “hanged” certainly provide an interesting term to describe the nature of his death. Yet, the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in the same way. Jesus was “hanged” (Greek kremamenos in Gal 3:13), as were the two males killed at the same time (Greek kremasthenton in Luke 23:39). While the term crucified is a much more common reference to this event, “hanged” is a variant expression of the same fate.108

From this passage in the Talmud we learn about the Jewish perspective on Jesus’s death by crucifixion. Further, the timing of the event, mentioned twice, is given as occurring on the eve of the Jewish Passover. A more surprising comment that is absent from the Gospels is that, for forty days beforehand, it was announced publicly that Jesus would be stoned. Such a move would certainly be consistent with both Jewish practice in general as well as the reports in John that Jesus had been threatened with this fate on at least two other occasions (John 8:58–59; 10:31, 33, 39).109 In the present case, the charge against Jesus was that he was guilty of “sorcery” and spiritual apostasy in leading Israel astray by his teaching. Then we are told that since no witnesses came forward to defend him, he was hanged.

Of further interest is that there is no additional explanation as to why Jesus was crucified (“hanged”) when stoning was the prescribed punishment. It is likely that the Roman involvement provided the “change of plans,” even though this subsequent development is not mentioned in the context here.

Later in b. Sanhedrin 43a, we find another early reference that also uses Jesus’s name and identifies five of his disciples, all of whom are given strange-sounding names for those familiar with the disciples mentioned in the Gospels. The passage recounts each of them standing before judges who ask if they must be killed. Each disciple is individually given the death sentence, though none of the actual deaths are either stated or recorded. From this second mention, we can ascertain that Jesus had some disciples and that some of the Jews thought these men were also guilty of actions that warranted execution, though we are not told what occurred to them after their sentence.

Another reference that has received attention is b. Sanhedrin 106a, which is often said to allude to Jesus’s resurrection: “Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, ‘Woe to him who makes himself alive by the name of God!’” However, this text dates from the mid-third century, later than the earlier Tannaitic period, which decreases considerably its historical value.

A couple of general themes should also be mentioned. It appears that Jesus was frequently blamed with teaching false doctrines or of using magic (apparently in his healing), since these ideas are often repeated. In the famous and most authoritative account in b. Sanhedrin 43a, Jesus is said to have received capital punishment because he “practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.” In b. Sanhedrin 107b, Jesus is also identified by name and said to have practiced magic and led Israel astray.110 In b. Gittin 56b–57a, Jesus is also identified as a false teacher. After evaluating arguments for both lateness and earliness, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner opts for an early provenance, though he notes that both early and late passages in the Talmud and the midrashim treat this as a common Jewish view of Jesus.111

A second common theme in these Jewish writings is derision of the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth112 as well as negative references to Mary, Jesus’s mother.113 But these depend on questions of identifying pseudonyms and other such issues. Still, Van Voorst argues that the name “Ben Pantera” or “Ben Pandera” in the Talmud seems to be “reasonably identified with Jesus” or his family. The idea here seems to be to treat Mary as having had an extramarital affair, with Jesus’s birth resulting from the pregnancy. Besides the Talmudic references, an independent source provided by Celsus, another early Christian critic who wrote approximately AD 180, relates that Mary had a child with a Roman soldier named Panthera,114 making this another potential point of connection with Jesus.115

Many other allusions and possible connections to Jesus also could be mentioned from these Jewish writings, although these potential references to Jesus were chiefly formulated in the later texts, therefore reducing seriously their historical value. For instance, one reference indicates that Jesus was treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty.116 The first comment of being treated differently is very possibly an indication of the fact that Jesus was crucified instead of being stoned as initially surmised in b. Sanhedrin 43a. The second part about royalty could be a reference to Jesus being born of the lineage of David, or it could actually be another criticism, this time belittling the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah or the King of the Jews. Another possible reference to Jesus states that he was either thirty-three or thirty-four years old when he died (b. Sanhedrin 106b).

Chiefly due to the questionable nature, background sources, and dates of these later Jewish references, many scholars utilize only the few earlier passages from the Tannaitic period. For example, after a careful and well-nuanced survey, Van Voorst seems to prefer only the b. Sanhedrin 43a and 106a accounts plus the references to Ben Pantera as well as the false-teaching theme.117 While the later references are often quite intriguing and may possibly reflect older traditions (as with Klausner’s thoughts on b. Gittin 56b–57a), we cannot be sure.

From even these few texts, we seem to safely be able to derive the reports of Jesus’s death by “hanging” after stoning was initially proposed, an event that occurred on Passover Eve. No witnesses came forward in his defense. Jesus’s “crime” was false teaching and leading Israel into apostasy. Jesus had disciples (five are mentioned) and each of them was also sentenced to death. There may also be an allusion to at least the Christian belief in Jesus’s resurrection in b. Sanhedrin 106a, but it is sketchy at best. The oft-repeated themes of Jesus being a false prophet and of Mary’s unfaithfulness in conceiving a child (i.e., Jesus) out of wedlock are also persistently taught. These reports seem pretty solidly to reflect Jewish concerns and animosity toward Jesus and early Christians.

Other Gentile Sources

Lucian

A second-century historian and Greek satirist, Lucian was an early critic of Christianity who spoke rather derisively of Jesus and early believers. He criticized Christians for being such gullible people that, with very little warrant, they would approve charla-tans who posed as teachers, thereby supporting these persons even to the point of making them wealthy. In the process of his critique he relates some important facts concerning Jesus and Christians:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. (Peregr. 11–13) 118

This material supplied by Lucian is very important and helpful, even though it was meant for other purposes, namely, to castigate the mid-second-century Christians.

Several valuable items are divulged in the process of belittling Jesus and these believers. Lucian explains that Christians worshipped Jesus, a teacher who had introduced new traditions in the geographical location of Palestine (Peregr. 11) and was crucified as a result. These novel ideas involved the notions that his followers were all brothers from the moment their conversion took place and they had denied all false gods. Additional teachings included worshipping Jesus and living according to his laws. Lucian refers to Jesus as a “sage,” which especially in a Greek context, compares him to one of the Greek philosophers and wise men.

As followers of Jesus who accepted these teachings by faith, these believers considered themselves to be immortal, which accounts for their contempt of death. Jesus’s teachings also involved a disregard for material possessions, manifested in their holding of common property among themselves. Like the saints who were celebrated in Heb 11:16, 26–27, these believers were more interested in their future salvation as well as the needs of others here in the present than they were in piling up earthly wealth.119

Additionally, Lucian also records additional information in the same context. These Christians possessed “sacred writings,” which they frequently read. When a problem arose that affected their community, “they spare no trouble, no expense.” However, Lucian noted that some of these beliefs allowed Christians to be easily taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals. When Peregrine, for example, was thrown into prison, the local Christians apparently visited him in droves, brought him meals, contributed money, and even slept in the cell with him! Lucian called Peregrine an “unscrupulous fellow” for taking advantage of the believers, gaining a personal fortune from them in the process (Peregr. 12–13).

Lucian unknowingly but very helpfully shares some important data about Jesus and especially regarding second-century Christian communities that we do not hear about elsewhere. These reports appear to have emerged from his own observations rather than from any New Testament or Christian reports. Even though he tried to disparage these believers for falling for Peregrine’s antics, he still succeeded in painting an impressive picture of their lifestyles, their willingness to share their wealth, their deep-seated beliefs and their application of them, as well as their outlook on the world. In many ways, it is an impressive picture.

Mara bar Serapion

The British Museum owns a letter written sometime between the late first and third centuries. Its author was a Syrian named Mara bar Serapion, who was writing from prison to motivate his son Serapion to emulate some of the wise teachers of the past. Though often overlooked in discussions of Gentile sources for Jesus, a wide number of dates are given for this letter within this range, though Van Voorst states that most are in the first century. For Van Voorst, Mara’s sources appear most likely to be Christian and not independent.120 However, on a Christian source it might be wondered why Jesus would be called the King of the Jews instead of a more common title, and why the resurrection was not mentioned instead of Jesus living on through his teachings.

In his encouragement to his son, Mara suggests imitating the likes of Socrates, Pythagoras, and (most likely) Jesus. The probable identification is indicated by calling the unnamed individual the King of the Jews, arguing that his execution led to a major defeat for the Jews, and by his being the only one to have his teachings mentioned. Here is the statement:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.121

So Jesus was considered to be a wise and apparently virtuous man. He is addressed twice as the Jews’ King, possibly a reference to Jesus’s own teachings, those of his followers, or even to the wording on the titulus placed over Jesus’s head on the cross. Jesus was executed unjustly by the Jews, who paid for their misdeeds by suffering judgment soon afterward, most likely a reference to the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman armies. Jesus lived on in the teachings of the early Christians, which is an indication that Mara bar Serapion was almost certainly not a Christian. Rather, he seems to follow Lucian and others in the popular comparison of Jesus to philosophers and other wise men in the ancient world.

Gnostic Sources

This category of extrabiblical sources is different from all the others in that these works often at least claim to be Christian, perhaps even exclusively so. Although scholars still debate the question of the origin of Christian-influenced Gnosticism, it is generally thought to have flourished chiefly from the second to the fourth centuries. The material in this section consists of four second-century documents containing varying amounts of gnostic flavor. While it is possible that there are other gnostic sources that are just as old or older than the four used here, these have the advantage of both being better established and claiming to relate historical facts regarding Jesus, many of which are not reported in the Gospels.

Without question, these writers were more influenced by the New Testament than the other sources in this chapter. Since Gnosticism came in many dialects, forms, shapes, and flavors, many different movements, writings, and ideas were permeated (or perhaps tainted!) with only smaller amounts of gnostic ideas. While the major gnostic ideas were pronounced heretical and viewed as such by the early church, Gnosticism’s influence certainly spread further than the more clearly overt doctrines. Some key volumes from this time frame are discussed in this chapter.

The Gospel of Thomas

No ancient semi-gnostic or gnostic writing has garnered anywhere near as much attention as has the Gospel of Thomas. A fierce debate has arisen over whether or not the Gospel of Thomas postdates the Synoptic Gospels and borrowed from them. But one problem here is that the Gospel of Thomas is not a homogenized volume of sayings—some of the comments are presumably earlier or later than others. For example, Van Voorst reports that approximately a quarter of the sayings in Thomas “are virtually identical to sayings in the Synoptic Gospels.” Another half of the sayings parallel the Gospels. Even here, a key question concerns whether one source borrowed from the others. Intriguingly, “the remaining one-quarter to one-third are manifestly gnostic sayings with a different theological outlook than the rest.”122

The Gospel of Thomas moved into prominence chiefly during the past several decades due to several reasons. The Coptic version of the book was discovered in 1945 and it has been getting “unpacked” ever since. Further, as a volume purportedly containing 114 sayings of Jesus basically without narrated events, it reminded many researchers of the so-called Q document, meaning that the Gospel of Thomas could also potentially contain some very early, previously unknown sayings of Jesus.

Although perhaps harsh, a few other scholars, judging even from their own comments, seem to be highly motivated to discover alternate Christologies in the early church and hope that the Gospel of Thomas may provide just such an opportunity. Hence it can be documented that, in the hands of particular critical scholars, the date for the book has moved steadily further back even in the absence of any new evidence.

Dunn has described this process rather conveniently and in much detail for those who enjoy following such trends largely as a battle between the radical scholars from the Jesus Seminar along with other like-minded thinkers spearheaded by Crossan on one hand, versus the remainder of critical scholars on the other. For Dunn and others, the radical crowd needs or even must have an early, independent Gospel of Thomas to float their drastic theses or else the rest of their position collapses. Additionally, they need “their” sources to predate the Synoptic Gospels if possible along with additional odd sources (like the “Cross Gospel” portion of the Gospel of Peter) and especially the differing strata within sources like Q.123

Yet the exceptionally influential critical scholars who argue against these theses speak for the majority of researchers. Dunn himself holds that the necessary background “neo-liberal” ideas fail while “the Synoptic tradition is closer to the earliest remembered sayings of Jesus than is the Gospel of Thomas.”124 Further, most scholars today hold that the Gospel of Thomas was guilty of the “reworking of earlier sayings material” rather than the other way around.125 John Meier agrees in that especially the “Synoptic-like sayings” in Thomas “are most likely dependent, directly or indirectly, on the canonical Gospels.”126 For Luke Timothy Johnson, “there is a fairly wide agreement that in its literary form [the Gospel of Thomas] postdates the canonical Gospels and should probably be dated at the very earliest to the mid-second century.”127 Lastly, even the agnostic Ehrman agrees with the majority position against the radical skeptics and dates the Gospel of Thomas to approximately AD 120.128

The Gospel of Thomas as a unit is usually dated by scholars from AD 100 to 200, and even this has involved a significant shift downward over the years. Van Voorst states that most scholars still place the work in the second century.129 Still, the book is often thought to reflect the presence of at least some material of earlier periods, as well as possibly even containing some independent sayings of Jesus.

More radical scholars sometimes charge that Jesus’s resurrection is not as central for the Gospel of Thomas as it is in the canonical New Testament. But this is a profound mistake. In the opening statement, Thomas identifies itself as “the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke” (Gos. Thom. 32:10–11).130 Robert Grant makes a typical response when he notes that this collection of teachings thereby purports to be the words of the risen Jesus, thus accounting for the almost complete absence of statements concerning his birth, life, and death.131 Most scholars appear to agree with Grant, especially since, as F. F. Bruce comments, “It is common form in Gnostic Gospels to represent the esoteric teaching or gnōsis which they contain as delivered by Jesus to his chosen disciples during his appearances to them after he was raised from the dead.”132 From this angle, Thomas has everything to do with the resurrected Jesus!

So do we learn much from the Gospel of Thomas regarding the historical Jesus? In an incident similar to Jesus’s question at Caesarea Philippi reported in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 8:27–30//Matt 16:13–17//Luke 9:18–21), the Gospel of Thomas also presents Jesus asking his disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like.” They responded by describing him as an angel, a philosopher, and an indescribable person (Gos. Thom. 34:30–35:4). In a later passage the disciples refer to Jesus as the consummation of the prophets (42:13, 18).

Jesus partially answers his own question on several occasions. He describes himself as the Son of Man (47:34–48:4), which is also the name most commonly reported in the Gospels. On other occasions he speaks of himself in more lofty terms. To Salome, Jesus states, “I am He who existed from the Undivided. I was given some of the things of My father” (43:28–30). Elsewhere in the Gospel of Thomas, he speaks of himself as the Son (44:34–35; 45:11–15; 49:21–26). In another instance Jesus speaks in more specifically gnostic terminology: “Jesus said, ‘It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there’” (46:23–28).

In these passages concerning the nature of his identity, we are told that Jesus inquired of his disciples as to their view of his uniqueness. Their responses are quite varied, with the comparison of Jesus to a philosopher being especially reminiscent of the references by Lucian and Mara bar Serapion. Jesus then identifies himself as the Son of Man, the Son of His Father, and the All of the universe.

The Gospel of Thomas also records a parable concerning the death of Jesus (45:1–16), including his subsequent exaltation (45:17–19). Again, Jesus is identified more than once as “living” or as the “Living One,” a reference to his post resurrection existence (e.g., Rev 1:17–18; see Gos. Thom. 32:10–11; 43:9–12; cf. 42:13–36). These references note Jesus’s death and his subsequent exaltation that resulted from his resurrection from the dead.

The foregoing references in the Gospel of Thomas require further comment. Initially, they often appear to be dependent on Gospel testimonies, especially in the question of Jesus’s identity and in the parable of the vineyard. Yet, as we have said, this “chicken or egg” question is debated by scholars.

It is also important to note some of the overly obvious gnostic propensities in the Gospel of Thomas and other similar writings, such as the identification of Jesus with the “Undivided” or the “All.” This certainly includes any monistic-sounding tendencies regarding the metaphysical nature of the universe. These inclinations certainly cast doubt on the objectivity and reliability of these reports in the sense that these words purportedly came from Jesus himself, since they have every indication of being borrowed from a foreign, non-Jewish philosophy. Hence, these comments cannot simply be considered side by side with more historical passages as if they all existed on level grounds. As Van Voorst comments, “Obviously, sayings that reflect an explicit Gnosticizing tendency must be discounted.”133

The Gospel of Truth

This book was possibly written by the gnostic teacher Valentinus or one of his disciples, which could date its writing in the vicinity of AD 135–160. If not, it still most likely came from this school of thought sometime in the second century.134 Unlike some other gnostic works, the Gospel of Truth addresses the historicity of Jesus in several short passages in a rather straightforward way. It does not hesitate to affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh. The author asserts that “the Word came into the midst . . . it became a body” (Gos. Truth 26:4–8).135 Later the text states: “For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. . . . For he came by means of fleshly appearance” (30:27–33; 31:4–6).

This wording is reminiscent of New Testament texts such as 1 John 1:1–3. From these two citations, Jesus is called the Son of God and the Word and is declared to have become a man and taken on an actual human body, one that could be perceived by all five human senses. Jesus also instructs his listeners about his Father.

According to the Gospel of Truth, Jesus likewise died and was raised from the dead:

Jesus was patient in accepting sufferings . . . since he knows that his death is life for many . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. . . . He draws himself down to death though life eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him. (Gos. Truth 20:11–14, 25–34)

Here as well as later (18:23), the author explains that Jesus was persecuted and suffered being “nailed to a tree”—obviously a reference to crucifixion. We are also told of the belief that it was Jesus’s death that brought salvation “for many,” which is referred to as the imparting of light to those who would receive it (30:37; 31:13–20). Jesus was also raised in an eternal body which no one can harm or take from him.

The theological overtones in the Gospel of Truth, like other gnostic writings, present an obvious contrast to the ancient secular works inspected above. But they also differ from one another. The phrases cited here are more down-to-earth and similar to the wording in the New Testament Epistles, as opposed to some of the more philosophical verbiage in the Gospel of Thomas. Even allowing for such theological motivation, however, these early gnostic sources still present us with a few important insights into the angle of their interest in the historical life and teachings of Jesus.

The Apocryphon of John

Robert Grant asserts that this work is closely related to the thought of the gnostic teacher Saturninus, who taught in the vicinity of AD 120–130.136 The Apocryphon of John was modified as it was passed on and is known in several versions. Irenaeus made use of one of these versions as a source for his treatment of Gnosticism in his Against Heresies, written around 185. Thus, by the time of Irenaeus, at least some version(s) of the Apocryphon of John existed.137

This text is largely a mythical treatise involving esoteric matters of gnostic theology, dealing little with historical matters. However, it does purport to open with a historical incident. We are told:

It happened [one day] when Jo[hn, the brother] of James,—who are the sons of Ze[bed]ee—went up and came to the temple, that a [Ph]arisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, “[Where] is your master whom you followed?” And he [said] to him, “He has gone to the place from which he came.” The Pharisee said to him, “[This Nazarene] deceived you (pl.) with deception and filled [your ears with lies] and closed [your hearts and turned you] from the traditions [of your fathers].” (Ap. John 1:5–17)138

This passage explains that the disciple John, in response to a question from Arimanius the Pharisee, stated that Jesus had returned to heaven, a possible reference to the ascension. The Pharisee responds by telling John that Jesus had deceived his followers by his teachings, which is somewhat reminiscent of the Talmud’s statements about Jesus. Whether or not such an encounter ever occurred between John and Arimanius, such an approach is certainly a typical view of Jesus’s teachings from the standpoint of the Jewish leadership.

The Treatise on the Resurrection

This book is addressed to an individual named Rheginos by an unknown author. Some have postulated that Valentinus may be the author, but most scholars reject this hypothesis. Though the ideas are somewhat Valentinian, potentially pointing to the presence of earlier ideas, it is probably better to date the work as originating closer to the late second century.139

For the author of the Treatise on the Resurrection, Jesus became a human being but was still divine:

The Lord . . . existed in flesh and . . . revealed himself as Son of God. . . . Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure (of the cosmos) had come into being. (Treat. Res. 44:13–36)140

This passage manifests much more gnostic terminology than the Gospel of Truth, but still teaches that Jesus became flesh as the Son of Man in spite of his true divinity as the Son of God who conquers death.

Jesus came to this world in the flesh of a human being, died, and rose again:

For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, “He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.” Great are those who believe. (Treat. Res. 46:14–21; cf. 44:27–29)

In less esoteric language, we are told that Jesus died, rose again, and thereby destroyed death in the process on behalf of those who believe in him.

We are told of Jesus’s resurrection in other passages too:

The Savior swallowed up death. . . . He transformed [himself] into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality. (45:14–23)

Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ. (48:10–19)

These two passages present an interesting contrast on the subject of Jesus’s death and resurrection. While the first statement is mixed with gnostic terminology, the second assures believers that the resurrection was not an illusion, which reminds us that some gnostics did not deny the physical death and resurrection appearances of Jesus.141

Since Jesus has been raised from the dead, the author counsels Rheginos that “already you have the resurrection . . . why not consider yourself as risen and (already) brought to this?” Thus Rheginos is encouraged not to “continue as if you are to die” (49:15–27). The resurrection of Jesus thereby provides practical considerations so that the believer may realize that he already has eternal life at present and should not live in fear of death. This teaching is similar to several of the New Testament teachings (Col 3:1–4; Heb 2:14–15) and adds significance to Lucian’s report that Christians believed they were immortal and were thus unafraid of death.

Once again, these four gnostic sources covered above are quite theologically oriented, freely incorporating many gnostic tendencies in addition to being generally later than most of our other texts. While these two qualifications do not necessitate unreliable reporting of the factual components, we certainly need to be cautious in using these data due to the other overarching concerns.142

Other Lost Works

Acts of Pontius Pilate

The contents of this purportedly lost document are described by both Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150) and Tertullian (ca. 200). Both theologians agree that the Acts of Pontius Pilate was an official Roman government document.143 Two types of archives were kept in ancient Rome. The Acta senatus comprise minutes from the senatorial meetings. These contain no discussions of Christ or Christianity as far as we know. The Commentarii principis comprise the correspondence sent to the emperors from various parts of the empire. Any report from Pilate to Tiberius would presumably belong to this second group.144

Justin Martyr reports in approximately 150 in his First Apology that the details of Jesus’s crucifixion could be validated from Pilate’s report:

And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the “Acts” of Pontius Pilate. (1 Apol. 35)145

Later in the same work, Justin lists several of Jesus’s healing miracles and then asserts, “And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate” (1 Apol. 48).

From these statements Justin Martyr relates several items, no doubt believing them to be contained in Pilate’s report to Rome. The chief concern here is apparently Jesus’s crucifixion, with details such as Jesus’s hands and feet being nailed to the cross and the soldiers gambling for his garments. But it is also asserted by Justin that several of Jesus’s miracles were also included in Pilate’s report.

Tertullian even reports the detail that Emperor Tiberius acted on the report:

Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians. (Apol. 5)

Tertullian’s account claims that Tiberius actually brought some details of Christ’s life before the Roman Senate apparently for a vote of approval. The Senate then reportedly spurned Tiberius’s own vote of approval, which engendered a warning from the emperor not to attempt any actions against the Christians. As noted by Bruce, this incident, which Tertullian apparently accepts as accurate, is quite an improbable occurrence. It is difficult to accept such an account when the writer is reporting about the event 170 years after it happened with seemingly no good intervening sources for such acceptance.146 Further, it ought to be mentioned that while Christians might wish that Tiberius was so positive toward them, this does sound a little too positive—both to speak out on behalf of Jesus and to threaten punishment on any who might accuse or otherwise harm Christians!

It makes sense that there may well have been an original report sent from Pilate to Tiberius containing some details of Jesus’s healing, crucifixion, and so on. In spite of this, it is certainly questionable whether either Justin Martyr or Tertullian knew what any potential report contained. Although these early Christian writers had reason to believe that such a document existed somewhere, evidence such as that found in the reference to Thallus is missing. In particular, there are no known fragments of the Acts of Pontius Pilate or any evidence that it was specifically quoted by another writer. Additionally, it is entirely possible that what Justin or Tertullian thought were original documents were actually an apocryphal Gospel also titled the Acts of Pilate.147

At any rate, we cannot endorse the potential existence of such a purported imperial document. Even if such did exist at one time, without more to rely on than general comments like these and without at least some citations in other existing volumes, we can hardly bank on its existence or contents. We would simply be making assertions in the dark.

Phlegon

Another lost source is that of Phlegon, whom Anderson describes as “a freedmen of the Emperor Hadrian who was born about AD 80.”148 While Phlegon’s work no longer exists, others like Origen and Africanus supply the needed information.

Origen records the following:

Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. (Cels. 2.14)149

So according to Origen, Phlegon recorded that Jesus made predictions about future events and that these occurrences had come to pass.

Origen adds another comment about Phlegon as well:

And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles. (Cels. 2.33)

Julius Africanus agrees on the last reference concerning Phlegon, adding a bit more information: “Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.”150

Origen provides one other reference that is difficult to decipher, as it is unclear whether Origen is quoting Phlegon on the subject of the resurrection: “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails” (Cels. 2.59). Conversely, Origen could be quoting the skeptic Celsus saying these same words, though making fun of them a moment later. But either way, it appears to be a witness to a resurrection appearance, whether it is being scoffed at by Celsus or proclaimed by Phlegon.

Several items are mentioned in the comments made by Origen and Julius Africanus concerning Phlegon: Jesus predicted the future and the events he forecast indeed did come to pass. There were earthquakes and an eclipse of the sun at the crucifixion that lasted from the sixth to the ninth hours during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Last, after his resurrection, Jesus appeared and showed that his hands had been pierced by the crucifixion nails.

The Gospel of Peter

Since at least fragments of the Gospel of Peter were known to Origen, and possibly even to Justin Martyr in the previous century, the Gospel of Peter is usually dated no later than the second century and often about AD 150.151 Exhibiting many legendary embellishments, the Gospel of Peter still knows historical details, such as Jesus’s trial; his being beaten, crowned with thorns, and crucified between two other men; and the sign that identified him. The Roman soldiers gamble for his clothes (Gos. Pet. 3:6–4:12). After crying out to God, Jesus dies (5:19). The Gospel of Peter also reports the torn temple veil and an earthquake. Joseph buries Jesus’s body in linen and places it is his own sepulcher (5:20–6:22).

Next, Pilate grants a Roman guard to watch Jesus’s tomb (8:29–33). The centurion, named Petronius, and the soldiers place seven seals on the great stone enclosing the tomb. Many observers, including the Jewish priests and the soldiers, are present at the tomb when two shining men descend from heaven and enter the tomb after the stone rolls away of its own accord (9:34–10:38). The two men emerge from the tomb, assisting a third person who was obviously struggling and needed support (10:38–42). The heads of the initial two men reach all the way to heaven, while the head of the third, wounded man rises above the heavens. The three men are then followed by a talking cross coming out of the tomb that answers a voice from heaven, which asks the cross whether the dead had indeed heard the message. The soldiers then report these things to Pilate, who commands them to tell no one else (11:43–49).

The next day, women come to the tomb and find that the stone has been rolled away. They see a young man sitting inside the sepulcher, who tells them that Jesus has already risen from the dead, after which they flee (12:50–13:57). The scene then shifts to Galilee where a few of Jesus’s disciples (Peter, Andrew, and Levi are named) are preparing to go fishing (14:58–60). But the manuscript breaks off mid-sentence before what was likely an appearance of the risen Jesus to these men.152

The existing fragments of the Gospel of Peter contain many reported items from the end of Jesus’s life. But for several reasons, the majority scholarly view is that there is not much here to help in reconstructing the last days of Jesus’s life. The source comes near the end of the 150-year period of this examination; it contains too many fantastic reports, such as the giant angels and the even taller Jesus; it is not known to be based on particular historical sources; and the author is unknown. Further, Christian materials including the canonical Gospels had already been cited by many previous, very early writers. Tatian’s fourfold Gospel—the Diatressaron—had been arranged about the same time as the Gospel of Peter was written, or perhaps even a little earlier. Hence, the Gospel of Peter is not an independent source but was preceded by other well-known texts.

However, the majority opinion does not determine truth (as asserted many times in this study), and, as mentioned above, Crossan thinks that the earliest portions of this text (what he calls the “Cross Gospel”) date to about AD 40–50, which he unpacks in some detail.153 Wright also explains some of the views on these issues.154

Celsus

The Greek philosopher Celsus wrote his famous attack on Christians, On the True Doctrine, between AD 160 and 180. This places his writing at approximately 130 to 150 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. While Celsus’s writing has not survived as far as is known, scholars estimate that about 70 percent of it may be reconstructed fairly accurately from Origin’s careful step-by-step critique written in the third century, titled Contra Celsum.155 We are not interested in responding to Celsus’s biting accusations here, but rather are most interested in enumerating some of the items that Celsus was aware of concerning the historical Jesus.156

Celsus blamed Mary’s conception of Jesus on her relations with a Roman soldier named Panthera—a story that circulated in more than one place in these times but nonetheless witnesses to the Christian belief in Mary’s virginity.157 Celsus was also very much aware of claims that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy and was a miracle worker as well as an exorcist. Celsus seemingly repeated often that Jesus’s actions in these instances were due to the use of magic, sorcery, trickery, or the involvement of Satan.158

Further, Jesus was poor.159 He had ten or eleven disciples.160 Jesus reputedly predicted his resurrection in advance, was beaten and then crucified, and then appeared to his followers on various occasions after his death. One witness was a “hysterical woman” among others who had gone to Jesus’s burial tomb and had seen one or two angels there who told them that Jesus had risen from the dead.161 Jesus was even worshipped as the Son of Man.162

As with the general view of the Gospel of Peter, Celsus’s work also suffers from coming at the end of the 150-year survey and being dependent on secondary sources, not all of which were accurate and which were ungrounded themselves. His extreme and acerbic criticisms indicate his unwillingness to entertain even the possibility of providing a fair evaluation, as will be argued in the second volume of this study. Further, his baseless complaints, which are not backed up by data of his own, do not stand the test of good research. However, the Gospel of Peter and Celsus show that, accurate or not, many reports about Jesus were circulating in the last quarter of the second century.

Archaeological Finds

Paul Barnett reports a few archaeological examples that indicate the spread of Christianity in the first-century Mediterranean world. One particular inscription has been found in at least seven different places, including two examples from the city of Pompeii, Italy. These artifacts are generally accepted as being Christian in origin because the letters can be rearranged in the shape of a cross to read “Our Father” (Latin: Pater noster). One example was “sealed in volcanic ash by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79.” This provides a solid case for the date and location of this find.163

The bones of Jehohanan, a first-century crucifixion victim who was reburied in a Jewish ossuary and whose bones were discovered in 1968, was a very important discovery for Jesus studies. It helped to confirm some important items regarding crucifixion while disconfirming others and leaving a few tough questions in its wake!164 But this case is discussed in several other places in this study, so it will not be pursued further here.

Three more ambiguous artifacts should at least be mentioned here, although very briefly. A marble slab measuring 15 by 24 inches with a Greek inscription was discovered in Nazareth. This decree, self-identified as an “Ordinance of Caesar,” warns that robbing graves, removing or disturbing dead bodies, breaking seals on graves, or moving the outer stones is punishable by death. It is often concluded that the decree dates from the reign of either Tiberius or Claudius, which would place it between AD 14 and 54. Ancient historian Paul Maier asks why the death penalty was required in Palestine for these crimes at precisely this time and location instead of paying a large fine, as witnessed in similar Roman edicts elsewhere. That the decree was discovered in Nazareth is very intriguing as well. Is it possible that rumors of Jesus’s resurrection that were already known in Italy occasioned this response? The answer cannot be determined for certain.165

A second archaeological find of a rather ambiguous nature is the possible discovery of the ossuary or “bone box” of James, the brother of Jesus, announced to the world in 2002. Written in Aramaic on the outside of the ossuary are the words, flowing from right to left, “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus.” An incredible torrent of controversy arose over this artifact’s provenance, which was covered by world outlets. In the United States, this involved numerous television reports (such as a special on the Discovery Channel) and news broadcasts led by top television celebrities. Additionally, hundreds of print items were also available, such as the front pages of both the New York Times and the Washington Post plus a major treatment in Time magazine. Just one year later, an important book was published by HarperCollins featuring Jewish archaeological researcher Hershel Shanks, the editor of the well-known Biblical Archaeological Review, and influential New Testament scholar Ben Witherington, both of whom thought that the ossuary was authentic.166

The third archaeological topic is even more controversial than the previous one, namely, the Shroud of Turin. Of course, if it is Jesus’s burial cloth, it would contribute perhaps dozens of new informational avenues, medical and otherwise. If not, then obviously none of this would follow. However, even if the shroud did not belong to Jesus but is an actual archaeological artifact rather than a fake, the burial garment of another crucifixion victim would still contribute much information, as have the bones of Jehohanan, the first-century crucifixion victim mentioned above. But this subject cannot be pursued further here.167

Synopsis: Jesus and Ancient Christianity168

When the combined evidence from ancient non-Christian sources is summarized, quite an impressive amount of information is reported concerning Jesus and ancient Christianity. Close to two dozen sources recorded within approximately 150 years after Jesus’s crucifixion present valuable material regarding the historical Jesus, his teachings, and early Christianity, along with other quite helpful background items. Not all of these records are equally strong, but even minus the more questionable sources, this early evidence for Jesus is still quite impressive.169

The Life and Person of Jesus

According to the sources mapped out above, the ministry of Jesus was geographically centered in Palestine (Tacitus, Lucian, Acts of Pontius Pilate). Jesus was said to have been born of a virgin (Celsus) and had a brother named James (Josephus; perhaps the James Ossuary). He and presumably his family were poor (Celsus). He was known as a wise, virtuous, and ethical man (Josephus, Mara bar Serapion). A result of his ministry was that he had many disciples drawn from both the Jews and the Gentiles (Josephus, Talmud, Gospel of Judas, Celsus).

Of the sources mentioned here, the gnostic works in particular commented on the person of Jesus. They report that on one occasion he asked his disciples who they thought he was (Gospel of Thomas). Although there were various answers to this question, these works agree that Jesus was both God and man. He was a flesh-and-blood person (Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection) as indicated by the title “Son of Man” (Gospel of Thomas). He was also said to be the Son of God (Treatise on Resurrection, Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Thomas), the Word (Gospel of Truth), and the “All” (Gospel of Thomas).

Yet as already mentioned, the gnostic works are questionable sources for the historical Jesus because of their late and theological character. However, some secular sources for the historical Jesus report similar beliefs. They assert that Jesus was worshipped as deity (Pliny, Lucian) and that some believed he was the Messiah (Josephus) and the Son of Man (Celsus), calling him “King” (Mara bar Serapion). That particular people believed such things about Jesus is thus a matter of the historical record.

The Teachings of Jesus

An interesting tendency among some ancient authors was to view Jesus as a philosopher with some distinctive teachings (Lucian, Mara bar Serapion, cf. Gospel of Thomas). Lucian lists as some of Jesus’s teachings the need for conversion, the importance of faith and obedience, the brotherhood of all believers, the requirements of abandoning the gods of other systems of belief, and the worship of himself, which was either taught or at least the result of his teaching. It might also be inferred that the Christian belief in immortality and lack of fear of death reported by Lucian was also due to Jesus’s teaching.

Pliny’s report that believers took oaths not to commit unrighteousness was probably due to Jesus’s warnings against sin. Pliny also mentions believers gathering together early to sing praises to Christ. The Gospel of Truth adds that Jesus taught his listeners about his Father and that Jesus realized that his death was the means of achieving life for many.

Further, Jesus reportedly performed miracles (Josephus[?], Celsus,170 Gospel of Judas, Acts of Pontius Pilate), cast out demons (Celsus), and made prophecies that were later fulfilled (Phlegon, Celsus, cf. Josephus). Jesus also predicted his own resurrection (Gospel of Judas, Celsus). Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Celsus, cf. Pliny below) as well as taught that he would return again (Celsus).

The Death of Jesus

After a trial (Gospel of Peter), the Jewish leaders judged that Jesus was guilty of teaching spiritual apostasy, thereby leading Israel astray (Talmud, Mishnah, cf. Apocryphon of John). So the Jews sent a herald proclaiming that Jesus would be stoned for his false teaching and invited anyone who wished to do so to come and defend him. But none came forth to support him (Talmud).

Before his crucifixion, Jesus was beaten and had a crown of thorns placed on his head (Gospel of Peter). After suffering persecution (Gospel of Truth) and as a result of his teachings (Lucian), Jesus was put to death (Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Celsus). He died at the hands of Roman procurator Pontius Pilate (Tacitus), who crucified him (Josephus, Talmud, Lucian, Gospel of Truth, Acts of Pontius Pilate) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (Tacitus, Phlegon).

Some details of the crucifixion are also provided. The event occurred on Passover Eve (Talmud) and included being nailed to a cross (Gospel of Truth, Acts of Pontius Pilate, cf. Tacitus, Phlegon?), after which the executioners gambled for his garments (Acts of Pontius Pilate, Gospel of Peter). A placard identified him (Gospel of Peter). There were signs in nature, such as darkness covering the land for three hours due to an eclipse of the sun (Thallus, Phlegon), and great earthquakes occurred (Phlegon, Gospel of Peter). Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice and died (Gospel of Peter), which was followed by the temple veil being torn in two (Gospel of Peter). One writer (Mara bar Serapion) asserted that Jesus was executed unjustly and that the Jews were judged accordingly by God.

For those who think that the Shroud of Turin is at least an authentic burial garment of a crucified man, even if it were not Jesus’s cloth (and much more so if it did belong to Jesus), this wrapping would add a considerable number of additional items that also would be relevant to death by crucifixion. These characteristics would include what appears to be a cap of thorns on the man’s head, an exceptionally severe beating with Roman instruments such as the flagrum (scourge) that largely covered the majority of the body, as well as four piercing wounds through the wrists and feet. The body in the cloth is in a state of rigor mortis along with several other medical indications of actual death, such as postmortem blood flow. There are no broken ankles (also reported by Celsus), but there is a large wound in the region of the chest. Yet, the man was buried in a tomb and covered with a linen cloth rather than being thrown into a garbage pit or buried in the ground.

The Gospel of Peter adds many details here that will only be sketched due to the information provided above. Joseph buried the body of Jesus in linen and placed him in his own sepulcher. Pilate granted a Roman guard named Petronius. Many people and priests camped out near the tomb along with the guards who watched the sepulcher. All the witnesses observed two shining angels come down from heaven, enter the tomb, and come out supporting Jesus’s body, followed by a talking cross that testified that the dead had heard the message! Each angel was huge, but Jesus was the tallest. The soldiers went to Pilate and told him the story, and they were commanded not to tell anyone. Seemingly not knowing about all these details, the women came to the tomb on Sunday morning and saw the stone rolled away and a young man dressed in very bright clothing (also mentioned in Celsus). He told them that Jesus had risen from the dead and had left the tomb. The women fled.

The Resurrection of Jesus

After Jesus’s death it is recorded that his teachings broke out again in Judea (Tacitus, cf. Suetonius, Pliny). What was the cause for this new activity and spread of Jesus’s teachings after his death? Could it have been the teaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead? Various answers are mentioned. Mara bar Serapion, for example, points out that Jesus’s teachings lived on in his disciples.

According to the very late Toledot Yeshu,171 the disciples had planned to steal the body, so Juda the gardener reburied it and later sold the body of Jesus to the Jewish leaders, who dragged it down the streets of Jerusalem. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian assert that the Jews sent trained men around the Mediterranean region to say that the disciples stole the body. The earliest of the sources, Matt 28:11–15, claims that after Jesus was raised from the dead, the Jewish leaders bribed the guards to have them say that the disciples stole the body, even though they did not.

Several sources also reported that Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to his followers afterwards. Josephus may have recorded the disciples’ belief in the resurrection appearances of Jesus, noting that these witnesses claimed to have seen Jesus alive three days after his crucifixion. Though difficult to tell exactly from the text, either Phlegon proclaimed or the skeptic Celsus made light of Jesus appearing again and showing the marks of the nail prints in his hands and perhaps other wounds as well. (If Celsus was the one speaking, he was doubtless trying to belittle the Christians for believing this.) In the Gospel of Peter, several disciples went back to Galilee and were preparing to go fishing. The text breaks off here, though it is assumed that Jesus appeared to them near the seashore.

The resurrection of Jesus is defended especially by the Treatise on the Resurrection but is also proclaimed by the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Thomas. Afterward, Jesus was exalted (Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas). The author of the Gospel of Truth seems to teach that Jesus was raised in a physical body, just like the one he occupied before his death.

Christian Teachings and Worship

Christians were named after their founder, Christ (Tacitus), whose teachings they followed (Lucian, Celsus). Believers were of all classes, ages, localities, and genders, forming a cross section of society (Pliny). For Christians, Jesus’s death procured salvation (Gospel of Truth) for those who exercised faith in his teachings (Lucian). As a result, Christians believed in their own immortality and scorned death (Lucian), realizing that eternal life was a present possession (Treatise on Resurrection).

Additionally, Lucian relates several other Christian teachings. Believers had sacred writings which were frequently read. They practiced their faith by denying material goods and by holding common property. They went to any extent to help with matters pertaining to their community, including feeding and visiting jailed members. However, Lucian does complain that Christians were gullible enough to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous persons.172

Pliny relates that believers met in a pre-dawn service on a certain day (probably Sunday). There they sang verses of a hymn, worshipped Christ as deity, and made oaths against committing sin. Then they would disband, only to reassemble to share food together, which very probably would at least include a reference to the love feast or the Lord’s Supper. Pliny also refers to the existence of positions in the early church when he mentions two female deaconesses.

The Spread of Christianity and Persecution

After the death of Jesus and the reported resurrection appearances, the disciples did not abandon the teachings they had learned from him (Josephus). By the middle of the first century, Christian doctrine and the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in particular had spread around the Mediterranean world. In fact, skeptics offered rationalistic explanations for these supernatural claims, presumably beginning immediately after Jesus’s death, but as soon as twenty years afterwards in writing. These rationalistic explanations continued from these earliest years throughout the entire period from Jesus’s death to the mid-first century, and beyond to varying degrees (Thallus; cf. later reports by Matthew, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Tertullian, and the Toledot Yeshu).

More specifically, Christian teachings had reached Rome before AD 49, less than twenty years after the death of Jesus, when Claudius expelled Jews from the city because of what was thought to be the influence of Jesus’s teachings (Suetonius). By the time of Nero’s reign (AD 54–68), Christians were still living in Rome (Tacitus, Suetonius). They could also be found in Pompeii, Italy, by AD 79 at the latest (according to Christian inscriptions found there). We are also told that Christians were present during the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Tacitus, Benediction 12 of the “Eighteen Benedictions”).

The spread of Christianity unfortunately involved persecution from a fairly early time in its history. There are many indications of this in the New Testament writings, including eyewitness comments by Paul. Sometimes it was tempered by a certain amount of fairness, as exemplified by the letters from Trajan and Hadrian. But it was real and serious for many early believers nonetheless. The Talmud relates an occasion when five of Jesus’s disciples were judged to be worthy of death. Tacitus provides much greater detail. After the great fire at Rome, Nero blamed the occurrence on Christians, who were described as a group of people hated by the Roman populace. As a result, many believers were arrested, convicted, mocked, and finally tortured to death. Being nailed to crosses and being burnt to death were two of the methods mentioned specifically. Such treatment evoked compassion from the citizens in Rome, with Tacitus blaming these events on the eccentricities and cruelties of Nero.

Christians were sometimes reported as lawbreakers (Pliny; cf. Trajan and Hadrian) for almost three centuries after the death of Jesus, after which Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Believers were blamed with atrocities such as meeting secretly, burning their children, drinking blood, and even being cannibals! For instance, Pliny’s main letter relates his methodology with Bithynian Christians. They were identified, interrogated, sometimes tortured, and then executed. If they denied that they were believers, as demonstrated by their worshipping Caesar and the gods, then they were freed. Pliny noted that true believers would never be guilty of such denials of Christ.

Emperor Trajan’s response encouraged moderation. Repentance and worship of the gods were sufficient for freeing these people. But Christians were not to be sought out. Emperor Hadrian offered similar advice prohibiting the harassment of Christians and even ordered that their enemies actually be dealt with if they acted improperly against believers. However, if Christians were guilty, they still would have to be punished.

Conclusion

This chapter has shown that many ancient extrabiblical sources present a surprisingly large amount of detail concerning both the life and death of Jesus as well as the nature of early Christianity. While many of these facts were quite well known, it must be remembered that they have been documented here apart from the usage of the New Testament. When viewed in that light, it should be realized that it is quite extraordinary that we could provide a broad outline of most of the major facts of Jesus’s life from “non-Christian” history alone. This is surely significant.

However, many of the extrabiblical sources also manifest several serious problem areas as well. They are often quite late when compared to the far earlier pre-Pauline creedal evidence, the sermon summaries in Acts, at least the early Pauline Epistles that skeptical scholars designate as this author’s seven “genuine” books (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon), and any additional data that may be drawn from the Gospels, especially as confirmed by the application of historical criteria that may also be shared with historians. Compared to some of the material in these earlier and much stronger sources, the secular sources usually fall short.173

Moreover, the non-Christian, secular sources are not as strong in a study of the historical Jesus, largely because they are generally much later than the New Testament books or sources and their connections to historical sources are usually far more tenuous. Additionally, they are much more prone to be dependent on derivative works rather than having been the pacesetters in original research. Even Wells correctly summarizes that the extrabiblical sources tend to be late, sometimes raise very difficult questions of provenance, and repeatedly reintroduce the question of whether they were dependent on other earlier texts.174

Since this is the central topic of this study, if we used only the information gleaned from these ancient extrabiblical sources, what could we conclude concerning the death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus? Can these events be historically established based on these sources alone?

Of the approximately two dozen different documents and other sources examined briefly in this chapter, more than a dozen indicate or imply Jesus’s death in varying amounts of detail, with almost all of these specifying that crucifixion was the mode. Even though not all of these resources are on equally evidential grounds, when these sources are examined by the normal historical procedures that are used with other ancient documents, the result seems conclusive.175 It is this author’s view that the death of Jesus by crucifixion can be asserted as a historical fact from this secular data alone. This conclusion is strengthened by the variety of details and the independence of the sources involved. Some of the documents can be contested, but the entire bulk of evidence points quite probably to the historicity of Jesus’s death due to the rigors of crucifixion.

In fact, when agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman entertained this same subject, he listed four of our sources that were considered in this chapter as being admissible as early and independent attestation: Tacitus, Josephus, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter.176 Though one may question how high the probability of the case for Jesus’s crucifixion would be based on this data alone, it seems nonetheless to rest on some significant grounds.

What about the empty tomb? Can it be established as historical by the weight of this non-Christian, extrabiblical evidence alone? There are some strong considerations weighing in favor of this event drawn from this material.

First, a few of the hostile Jewish sources already examined possibly imply the empty tomb, thereby potentially providing enemy attestation. Josephus may note the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s resurrection appearances, while the much later Toledot Yeshu specifically acknowledges the empty tomb. Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150) and Tertullian (ca. 200) both confirm the account in Matt 28:11–15 by asserting that Jewish leaders were still admitting the empty tomb more than a century later.177 While these Jewish sources (with the exception of Josephus) taught that Jesus’s body was stolen or moved, they still thereby admit that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was empty.

Second, there were apparently no ancient sources which asserted that the tomb still contained Jesus’s dead body. While such an argument from silence does not prove the case, it does succeed in making it a little stronger and hence complements the first consideration from the hostile sources.

Third, it is clear from the sources in this chapter that Jesus’s teaching centered in Palestine (Tacitus, Lucian, Celsus, Acts of Pontius Pilate) and that he was crucified and buried in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Josephus, Shroud of Turin[?]). These sources assert that Christianity had its beginnings in the same location. But could Christian preaching have survived in this city based on its central claim that Jesus was raised from the dead if the tomb had not been empty? It would be a very short walk to the tomb to expose the lie if that was its nature.

It must be remembered here that the resurrection of the body was the predominant view in first-century Judaism. Accordingly, to declare a bodily resurrection when a body was still located in a nearby tomb points out the dilemma here. Of all places, evidence was certainly and readily available in Jerusalem to disprove an important tenet of Christian belief, and at a very early juncture, if it were at all possible. The Jewish leaders had both a motive and the means to get such evidence if it were available. It would seem that even for those who favored a less than bodily mode of afterlife, finding the body in the tomb could still have been an issue, although admittedly a lesser one.

As expressed by ancient historian Paul Maier regarding the birth of Christianity: “But this is the very last place it could have started if Jesus’ tomb had remained occupied, since anyone producing a dead Jesus would have driven a wooden stake through the heart of an incipient Christianity inflamed by his supposed resurrection.”178 Maier continues: “Accordingly, if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter.”179

Dealing with different factual data, another ancient historian, Michael Grant, also agrees with this conclusion strictly from the viewpoint of how historical research is done: “But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”180

Of course, an empty tomb does not guarantee a resurrection. So what about the teaching that Jesus’s disciples or someone else stole the dead body of Jesus, as per the contentions of these Jewish sources? Can such hypotheses account for the empty tomb and short-circuit the question of Jesus’s resurrection?

Contemporary critical scholars, whether skeptical or not, are virtually unanimous in rejecting all such stolen body hypotheses, most of all those that implicate Jesus’s disciples.181 For just a single consideration: if the disciples stole the body, would most or perhaps even all of them been willing to die, in all likelihood, for a known lie or fraud?182 Liars who know the truth make notoriously bad martyrs! It is even difficult to produce single parallel cases throughout history. Additionally, the tremendously changed lives of these earliest disciples and their honest beliefs that Jesus was raised from the dead, both of which are willingly admitted by critical scholars, are unexplained if they stole the body and then lied about it. In short, Jesus’s disciples would be the last ones to be implicated here.

This charge also fails to address the two unbelieving skeptics who believed that they saw the risen Jesus, namely, Paul and James the brother of Jesus—both of whom would hardly have been convinced by such fraud. These and several other considerations, such as the quality of ethical teachings of the disciples, account well for the dismissal of this alternative view even by critical scholars today. The position has hardly been held by any scholar in well over 200 years!183

Even worse, actually, is the hypothesis that the body of Jesus was taken or moved by someone other than the disciples. The major problem, among others, is that it only accounts, at best, for the location of the body. It does not account for the strongest, critically ascertained fact in favor of the resurrection: the disciples’ beliefs that the risen Jesus had literally appeared to them. Since one must search elsewhere to account for this major fact, this view cannot come close to disproving the resurrection. Not only is this the case with the disciples themselves, but even more with Paul and James, who pose additional refutations because someone else moving the body would not affect them.

Additionally, such views fail to provide a plausible person or persons to perform such acts, viable motives, a place for the final burial of Jesus’s body, or any explanation for the fact that the act was never admitted, discovered, or otherwise reported. But again, the appearances of Jesus are not even dealt with by these theses, and this constitutes the primary refutation of this second option. Strangely enough, if Jesus’s body had been moved to another location, Jesus could presumably just as easily have risen from the dead in that other location!

Also, it should be remembered that the Toledot Yeshu, which poses the view that Jesus’s body was dragged down Jerusalem’s streets, is a much later source and is considered unhistorical even by most Jewish scholars. Its thesis fails because such an act would have killed Christianity centuries ago, when this obviously did not occur. Nor does it explain Jesus’s appearances. It is no wonder that these fraud hypotheses have also had no reputable supporters in the last two centuries.184

In conclusion, the secular, nonbiblical sources can also make a decent case for Jesus’s empty tomb, including addressing natural responses. After all, it should be remembered that an empty tomb does not require a supernatural explanation of any sort. As was asked of the crucifixion accounts: how likely a case for the empty tomb could be built from these secular sources alone? This would of course vary from person to person. Based on the evidence admitted by hostile documents, the absence of contrary data, and the important information concerning the location of the message, we conclude that there is some underlying probability for the empty tomb based on the ancient extrabiblical sources alone. However, the overall case does not seem quite enough to establish this event by itself.

Lastly, what about the ancient secular references to the resurrection of Jesus? These sources are fewer and far more questionable. Of the sources here, only about a half dozen report this occurrence, but several of these are among those that were questioned most. Thus it cannot be concluded that the ancient extrabiblical sources, by themselves, can historically establish the resurrection, as with Jesus’s death by crucifixion. Nor does this case approach the data available in favor of the empty tomb possibility. In fact, the secular data in favor of the resurrection does not really seem very strong at all. The evidence indicates that alternative theories involving a stolen or moved body are exceptionally weak, but the resurrection sources alone cannot answer other alternative dismissals. Thus, the cause of this event cannot be demonstrated beyond that point. Some of these testimonies could be helpful in supplementing other arguments. But by themselves, the extrabiblical sources alone leave much to be desired to establish the resurrection of Jesus.

Nonetheless, the ancient extrabiblical sources do indeed provide a broad outline of the life of Jesus and a number of the features of early church history. As Luke Timothy Johnson argues, “The historian can assert . . . with the highest degree of probability that Jesus existed as a Jew in the first century, that he was executed by Roman authority in Palestine, that a movement arose in his name and proclaiming him as risen Lord spread across the Mediterranean world within twenty-five years. . . . All these assertions . . . are confirmed by converging lines of outsider and insider sources.”185 These documents indicate that Jesus was viewed as deity and died due to the effects of crucifixion. From these secular reports alone, Jesus’s tomb might have been found empty afterwards, and Jesus’s body appears not to have been either stolen or removed. While this ultimate mystery remains, additional data from other sources are needed to reach a final position on the nature of the resurrection event and the appearances.

In sum, few ancient historical figures can boast of anywhere close to the same amount of material as exists for Jesus. Whether secular figures like Alexander the Great or religious personages such as Buddha are discussed, there is hardly a comparison to be made. Historian E. P. Sanders notes that the “sources for Jesus are better . . . than those that deal with Alexander. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later—much later—writers.”186

Similarly and perhaps even more remarkable, Buddhist scholar Edward Conze asserts that the historical sources for Jesus and early Christianity are far better than those for Buddha: “Buddhists possess nothing that corresponds to the ‘New Testament.’” For example, the chief texts that Conze presents in his volume mostly date from 600 to 900 years after Buddha’s death.187 Moreover, the information on Buddha is so late that there is “no objective criterion which would allow us to isolate the original gospel” of Buddhism! Scholars do not even know which school of thought Buddha would have identified as his own, due to the significant amount of legend.188

Rather incredibly, even Ehrman asserts often in his volumes that the amount of historical information for the existence of Jesus is amazing. He argues regarding the available evidence that “for a historian these provide a wealth of materials to work with, quite unusual for accounts of anyone, literally anyone, from the ancient world.”189 He ends his volume on the historicity of Jesus with these words: “Jesus did exist, whether we like it or not.”190

Toledot Yeshu

This anti-Christian document not only refers to Jesus but gives an interesting account of what happened to Jesus’s body after his death. Besides Mary being tricked by Joseph Pandera, resulting in her pregnancy with Jesus, the tale explains that years later, Jesus’s disciples planned to steal his crucified and dead body. However, a gardener named Juda discovers their plans and digs a new grave in his garden. Then Juda removes Jesus’s body from Joseph’s tomb and places it in his own newly dug grave. The disciples come to the original tomb, find Jesus’s body missing, and proclaim him to have been raised from the dead.

The Jewish leaders also proceed to Joseph’s tomb and find it empty. Juda then takes them to his grave and digs up the body of Jesus. The Jewish leaders are greatly relieved and want to take the body. Juda replies that he will sell them the body of Jesus and does so for thirty pieces of silver. The Jewish priests then drag Jesus’s body through the streets of Jerusalem.191

It is true that the Toledot Yeshu was not compiled until at least the fifth century and possibly as late as the tenth century—far too late to help with historical matters.192 While the text does reflect some earlier Jewish traditions, that is hardly enough to make a significant difference. Jewish scholars reportedly scorn the reliability of this source.193 Klausner, for example, makes this point more than once. He states that the work is “nothing beyond a piece of folklore. . . . The book contains no history worth the name. . . . It cannot possibly possess any historical value nor in any way be used as material for the life of Jesus. . . . It is valueless for a knowledge of the historical events affecting Jesus.”194

The teaching that the disciples removed Jesus’s dead body persisted in the early centuries after Jesus’s death, though hardly originating with the much later Toledot Yeshu. Matthew 28:11–15 mentions that this report was still popular when the Gospel was written several decades after Jesus’s death. As has already been mentioned, Justin Martyr, writing about AD 150, states that the Jewish leaders had even sent specially trained men around the Mediterranean and even to Rome to further this teaching. This is also confirmed by Tertullian in about AD 200. In other words, even though the Toledot Yeshu itself is far too late and untrustworthy as a source, in spite of any earlier material, the idea that the tomb was empty because the body was moved or stolen was common enough in early church history as witnessed by other sources.

Notes

1 When speaking of mythicism in the context of historical Jesus studies, Dale Allison exemplifies this view by commenting that he would “bring a few long-forgotten skeletons out of the closet and then quickly explain how they died.” The quotation is from Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 20 (chap. 2, n. 15).

2 This configuration introduces the issue of whether the gnostic and semi-gnostic sources containing a mixture of religious perspectives should be considered in the Christian or non-Christian categories. It seems there are sizable issues no matter how this is demarcated. The decision here was to include only the canonical New Testament works plus very few of just the earliest postapostolic writers in the orthodox camp, such as Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. The gnostic and semi-gnostic writers were included with the more secular camp that is being discussed in this chapter, though it is acknowledged that these works do not fit comfortably in either category. There are quite a few reasons for arranging the sources this way. Among these considerations are the sometimes very wide differences between the ideas in the orthodox and gnostic-leaning works, the fact that the gnostic works of whatever stripe were not included in the New Testament canon, that many scholars hold that gnostic thinking was often a mixture with more Greek-oriented philosophical thought, and that the best data suggest that the gnostic works should be dated much later according to the large majority of specialists. That the gnostic works are most often the least historically inclined of all these sources is also an indication of huge differences. However, by no means should this differentiation be interpreted as some sort of Christian/non-Christian divide, especially since the identity of the various gnostic authors is not even known. Hence, how can these individuals themselves be evaluated? For that matter, certain writers on the orthodox side are sometimes questioned as well. Moreover, a few of the gnostic-leaning works or portions of these works may even be closer theologically to the orthodox camp. So while the entire question is very difficult no matter how it is arranged, this is simply the way it was decided here.

3 Some of these more detailed works include the following: Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? (see chap. 2, n. 15); Casey, Jesus (see chap. 4, n. 41); Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure of History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986); Habermas, Historical Jesus, esp. chapters 2, 7–11 (see chap. 3, n. 48).

4 Peter Gay, The Enlightenment, an Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Paganism (New York: Knopf, 1966), 374–85. The quotation above is from 378. Sample deist writings have been collected in Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1968); see Gay’s first two chapters on the scholarly environment and ideas of the time, particularly pages 9–10, 13. Another treatment is John Herman Randall Jr., The Making of the Modern Mind: A Survey of the Intellectual Background of the Present Age, rev. ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1940), 291–94. For a solid, multifaceted critique of the deistic movement, see William Lane Craig, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1985).

5 In our chapter on German liberalism in volume 2, it is mentioned that two scholars nonetheless did deny Jesus’s existence—Bruno Bauer and Peter Jenson.

6 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 39.

7 Rudolf Bultmann, “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 60 (see chap. 5, n. 28).

8 Regarding their testimony of their loss of personal faith (with Casey’s going back to 1962), see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 5, also 35–37, 71, 94–95, 143, 333; Casey, Jesus, 3, 37, 39.

9 For a slightly longer list of somewhat better trained mythicists, see Justin J. Meggitt, “‘More Ingenious than Learned’? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus,” New Testament Studies 65 (2019): 444–45.

10 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 2. The review of mythicist writers is on 14–30, 167, 191–97.

11 Ehrman, 21. Probably the most influential twentieth-century mythicists, Wells along with Price, were the two whom Ehrman thought “deserve to be taken seriously.” It should be noted that Casey is one of the scholars who has already noted Wells’s recent modification of his own views away from denying that Jesus ever lived; see Casey, Jesus, 25. Philosopher James Hannam reports a number of details on Wells’s changes in his blog “Bede’s Library” in an entry titled “An Evening with GA Wells,” December 8, 2009, http://bede.org.uk/gawells.htm. Although Hannam’s details on Wells’s lecture nevertheless indicated some quite radical views on the historical Jesus, he still notes that for Wells, “contra Earl Doherty and indeed the chairman of the meeting, Paul did believe Jesus had been a real Jewish man put to death by crucifixion.”

12 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 118, 133; also, 55, 59, 191, 253.

13 Ehrman, 20.

14 Ehrman, 20.

15 Ehrman, 268.

16 Casey, Jesus, 18–31.

17 Casey, 10; similarly 243.

18 Casey, 16.

19 Casey, 14–15, 24, respectively.

20 Casey, 10, 28, 199, 244. Casey’s quotation is from 28.

21 Casey throughout almost the entire volume, but chiefly 10, 16–18, 21–22, 27–28, 45–46, 48–52, 59, 107–8, 118–31 (mostly concerning Doherty), 133–41 (chiefly regarding G. A. Wells), 142–50 (back to Doherty), 153–201, with many key conclusions summarized on 243–45.

22 Casey, 1, 13, 17, 20, 22, 27, 33–34, 49, 130–31, 150, 230–34, 243–45.

23 Casey, 27.

24 Casey, 54–59, 133–35, 150, 153–54, 201.

25 Casey, 4–9, 11, 19, 23, 58–59, 243 for examples.

26 Nathan LaMontagne, review of Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, by Maurice Casey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77 (2015): 757.

27 Casey, Jesus, 245.

28 Such as Casey’s former classmate John M. Court, review of Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, by Maurice Casey, Theology 118 (2015): 53–54.

29 LaMontagne, review of Jesus (by Casey), 757. Cf. also Euan Marley, review of Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, by Maurice Casey, New Blackfriars 97 (2016): 235–37.

30 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 6. Another clear sign of the changing times is that Van Voorst also noted that G. A. Wells was “now almost a lone voice for” the mythicist position (14)! Compare that to today’s writers that we have already discussed above.

31 Van Voorst, 7.

32 Van Voorst, 6–14; reminiscent of Ehrman and Casey surveys.

33 Van Voorst, 14–16.

34 Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus: Five Views (see chap. 1, n. 3) The all-star cast of participants in this volume include Robert M. Price, John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James D. G. Dunn, and Darrell L. Bock.

35 Bob Price has been a friend of mine for over twenty-five years, and while repeatedly picking up this instructive text edited by Beilby and Eddy since its appearance in 2009, I have frequently envisaged how I might have responded when facing similar strong comments that came Bob’s way from some (but not all) of the other respondents. Throughout, however, Bob treats each interlocutor politely, referring frequently to each scholar by his or her title “Dr.” and/or “Professor” in spite of their disagreements. Price’s many such comments can be found on pages 133–37, 178, 180–81, 226–32, 285–86. Of course, none of this changes the force of any of the individual arguments in the volume, but I thought that this observation was worth making on a personal level.

36 Robert M. Price, “Jesus at the Vanishing Point,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus: Five Views, with the two quotations on 55 and 56, respectively.

37 Price, chiefly 56–66, 75–83, quotation on 83.

38 John Dominic Crossan, “Response to Robert M. Price,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus: Five Views, 85. One slightly stronger comment appears on 86.

39 Luke Timothy Johnson, “Response to Robert M. Price,” in Beilby and Eddy, 89.

40 James D. G. Dunn, “Response to Robert M. Price,” in Beilby and Eddy, 94–95.

41 Later, Dunn states, “I have no doubt that Birger Gerhardsson and David Aune are better guides on these features than the more prominent members of the Jesus Seminar.” See Dunn, “Response to Robert M. Price,” quotes on 96 and 98 respectively. The note should be added that Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar.

42 Darrell L. Bock, “Response to Robert M. Price,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, chiefly 101–3.

43 Rather incredibly, sometimes fascinating and even helpful Internet discussions on the historical Jesus have continued unabated, also revealing some equally vociferous defenders of Jesus’s historicity. In many of these dialogues, major personalities across the spectrum have paraded their arguing in sometimes very entertaining discussions. The participants in both the blogs and in the later responses to them have included some of the best-known personalities in the heart of this mythicist-versus-traditional debate, such as Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, and former Oxford University professor Joseph Hoffmann. For many responses and counterresponses, including posts on various sides of the issues, see: https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/mythtic-pizza-and-cold-cocked-scholars/; https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-maurice-casey/; https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-stephanie-louise-fisher/; https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-stephanie-louise-fisher/; https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/the-jesus-process-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/; http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/; https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/carrier-finally-responds-to-ehrman-on-the-historicity-of-jesus/.

44 Just a brief sampling of the skeptical and moderate critical scholars who support the Tacitus and the two Josephus references (including the Ant. 18.3 text being edited), would include: Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291; Casey, Jesus, 9–10 (though Casey comments only on Josephus’s authentic report on the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, rather than on the Ant. 18:3 Jesus text, which is not treated in this context); John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 371–75; Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), chiefly 161–63; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 222–23 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Geza Vermes, Jesus and His Jewish Context, 91–98, with an entire essay on Josephus alone (see chap. 4, n. 84); N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 141–42 (see chap. 1, n. 3); John P. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:161–65 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 39–53, 81–104 (see especially Van Voorst’s comment on the importance of Tacitus and Josephus on 15): E. P. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 49–51 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Luke Timothy Johnson, Real Jesus, 113–16 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 284–85 (see chap. 1, n. 18). As with Casey above, Tabor only discusses Josephus’s authentic comment on James the brother of Jesus); Kee, What Can We Know, 6–8, 10–11 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Powell, Jesus as a Figure of History, 32–33; Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 477–78; Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 21–23; France, Evidence for Jesus, 21–23, 25–32.

45 Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” 477–78.

46 Many contemporary critical scholars express varying degrees of positive recognition concerning the likelihood that additional non-Christian authors besides Josephus and Tacitus also wrote regarding Jesus and early Christianity. This list includes Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 291 (concerning the Gospels of Peter and Thomas); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 142 (for Suetonius and a rabbinic source: “the most plausible echo of early pre-rabbinic [Pharisaic] reaction to Jesus is b. Sanhedrin 43a”); Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 20–39 (for Thallos [an alternate spelling of Thallus], Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, and Suetonius), 53–68 (for Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, and Celsus), and 104–22 (for considerations from the Jewish rabbinic traditions); Powell, Jesus as a Figure of History, 33–34 (for Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Lucian of Samosata, and the Talmud); Kee, What Can We Know, 8–10, 12–15 (concerning Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Suetonius, and some rabbinic comments); Johnson, Real Jesus, 114–17 (for rabbinic sources, especially b. Sanhedrin 43a, plus Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, and Lucian of Samosata); Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 20–21, 23–31 (for Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Thallus, and Mara bar Serapion); France, Evidence for Jesus, 23–24 (particularly for a few rabbinic writings, as well as possibly relevant details from Thallus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger [and presumably Emperor Trajan], along with Mara bar Serapion).

47 In a survey of the multiple independent texts that attest to Jesus’s crucifixion, Ehrman points out more than a dozen sources up to approximately 100 years after the event; esp. Did Jesus Exist?, 290–91.

48 Hadas, “Introduction,” ix, xiii–xiv (see chap. 1, n. 31).

49 An alternate thesis is that the Annals originally included sixteen books, with the Histories totaling fourteen books, also equaling a total of thirty (cf. Hadas, “Introduction,” xii).

50 All translations of Tacitus from Church and Brodribb, Works of Tacitus (see chap. 1, n. 31).

51 See note 86 below on the alternate spellings in both Tacitus as well as Suetonius.

52 Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 23.

53 Wells is referred to here as a mythicist instead of by his new position, as described above by James Hannam, due to his convictions at the time of writing his major works.

54 G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 2nd ed. (London: Pemberton, 1986), 13–14. Wells provides three reasons why Tacitus was not independent, though none of them seem to hit the mark even somewhat! Wells’s text is The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988), 16–17.

55 Much of history has been constructed by interviews with or reports from eyewitnesses. While these accounts may not possess the gravitas of official Roman government reports, they could certainly be quite accurate, not to mention being independent sources. One example that comes to mind is the 700-page volume by Eisenschiml and Newman, Eyewitness: The Civil War as We Lived It (see chap. 2, n. 9). It consists largely of interviews with persons who actually lived through the events in question, as the title indicates. In principle, what would be so different about Tacitus interviewing Christians or Romans who experienced firsthand the situation in Rome, biased views and all, and were still alive when he took notes for his Annals? How would that be so different from Eisenschiml and Newman interviewing members of the North and South some decades later, including these witnesses’s own prejudices?

56 J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19.

57 Cook lists dozens of examples of nails, ropes, or other methods, such as chains being used in crucifixion, with nails being used far more frequently, especially by the Romans (451). See John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, 2nd ed., Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), esp. 425–26n45; see also 95, 98, 190, 194–95, 197, 243, 293, 430–31n70; in ancient fiction, 261. Michael Licona reports some dozen and a half ancient references to nails being used in crucifixion as opposed to many fewer references to the victim being tied. See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 304, particularly n. 98 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 31–32n25; see also the major details from Craig A. Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. Michael F. Bird (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 83–86 in particular.

58 Sulpicius Severus, Chr. 2.30.6. Although Tacitus is not mentioned by name in Severus’s text concerning Tacitus being Severus’s historical source here, it should be noted that in the material immediately preceding this portion (Chr. 2.29), the subject matter is the statement by Tacitus in the Annals that we have just reviewed directly above, and it utilizes many of the same words and phrases used by Tacitus. Then Severus goes further in 2.29 and adds both Paul’s martyrdom by beheading and Peter’s death by crucifixion. Eric Laupot also notes that Severus’s text in Chr. 2.30 likewise manifests Tacitus’s style. See Laupot, “Tacitus’ Fragment 2: The Anti-Roman Movement of the ‘Christiani’ and the Nazoreans,” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000): 233–47.

59 Henri Daniel-Rops, “The Silence of Jesus’ Contemporaries,” in The Sources for the Life of Christ, ed. Henri Daniel-Rops, trans. P. J. Hepburne-Scott (New York: Hawthorn, 1962), 19–21; Bruce, New Testament Documents, 102–3 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

60 Although Joseph Klausner’s major works are dated, this well-known Jewish scholar dates the Antiquities at about AD 93; see Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1929), 55–57, as does a much later source by another major scholar, Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Josephus and the Scriptures,” Fides et Historia 13 (1980): 44.

61 Josephus, Ant. 20.9. The translation of Josephus used here is The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia: David McKay, 1820).

62 Daniel-Rops, “Silence of Jesus’ Contemporaries,” 21.

63 Origen, Cels. 1.47.

64 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.11.

65 Daniel-Rops, “Silence of Jesus’ Contemporaries,” 21; Anderson, Christianity, 20; Bruce, New Testament Documents, 108. For specialists, cf. Bruce’s comments on 109 for the views of British historian H. St. John Thackeray and Joseph Klausner.

66 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 55–60.

67 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 55–57.

68 David Flusser, “New Evidence on Jesus’ Life Reported,” New York Times, February 12, 1972.

69 Flusser, “New Evidence.”

70 James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 93.

71 Charlesworth, 93–94.

72 Charlesworth, 96–97. Yamauchi’s position on these matters is quite similar at more than one juncture; see Yamauchi, “Josephus and the Scriptures,” 58, cf. 56.

73 Edwin M. Yamauchi is another of those who speak in terms of these three positions, adding scholarly lists for each. See Yamauchi, 54.

74 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 89–91.

75 Van Voorst, 91–93. Wells agrees on at least the first reason that the Testimonium does not fit Josephus’s immediate context in Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 18.

76 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 93–99.

77 This informal tally emerged from a series of emails between Louis Feldman and Michael Licona, dated November 2001. Used by permission.

78 See Van Voorst’s list of historical data drawn from Josephus’s comment in Jesus outside the New Testament, 99–102.

79 Van Voorst, 102–3.

80 Bruce presents a somewhat similar list of facts. See New Testament Documents, 112.

81 The lengthy list of researchers who view very positively Josephus’s two references to Jesus are provided here and throughout this chapter, including a number of very skeptical scholars, like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, and Geza Vermes, who freely acknowledge Josephus’s important contributions in Ant. 18.3. Strangely enough, mythicist G. A. Wells responds concerning Ant. 18.3 that he thinks it “has been shown fairly conclusively to be wholly a Christian interpolation.” Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 10. Wells even argues that the James citation in Ant. 20.9.1 is very likely to be an interpolation as well (11)! See also Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 18. The operative term in Wells’s quotation here is “wholly.” Actually, almost no critical scholars hold that view! So when reading these sorts of mythicist responses, one cannot help but wonder how these almost totally inaccurate retorts arise. It seems sometimes that no matter where the data lead, this group of writers will state their own seemingly highly prejudiced views. For example, what are the historical grounds for Wells’s comment here? No scholars are cited in confirmation. Then Wells has the temerity to add that the James passage in Josephus “is still defended by some scholars” though, even then, it is said by Wells to be supported “on obviously inadequate grounds.” Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 18, emphasis added. It is simply amazing how these sorts of comments pass for careful historical analysis.

Another just as bold an example is that of mythicist Michael Martin, who asserts confidently that there is “almost . . . uniform agreement that this passage is spurious.” Martin, Case against Christianity, 48 (see chap. 2, n. 28). Exactly who is Martin reading that allows him to make such an obviously incorrect observation? In the context, he is actually responding against Habermas, saying that Habermas simply does not know where scholars are on this issue! Yet, of the five scholars listed by Martin as agreeing with him, at least two clearly disagree! To make matters worse, one of these two, John Drane, speaks directly against Martin’s position, reporting that “most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity” of the majority of Ant. 18:3! See John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 138. How do summaries such as these pass for research and scholarship? It gives the appearance that mythicists just read other mythicists alone or simply create statements about majority opinion out of thin air, providing all the confirmation that these writers need! But when authors are this far removed from the majority of scholarship, what else can be concluded?

82 Yamauchi, “Josephus and the Scriptures,” 53. This is why Wells’s stated position on this particular passage in Ant. 20.9 as expressed in the previous note is so ridiculous and wide of the mark. It appears that no effort has been made to deal with the specialists in the field; he prefers “shooting from the hip” as the proper move to make.

83 Robert Graves, “Foreword,” in The Twelve Caesars, ed. E. W. Rieu, trans. Robert Graves (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957), 7.

84 François Amiot, “Jesus A Historical Person,” in Daniel-Rops, Sources for the Life of Christ, 8.

85 Suetonius, Claud. 25; all translations of Suetonius from Graves, The Twelve Caesars.

86 Translator Robert Graves of the Penguin Classics edition notes that by “Chrestus,” Suetonius is referring to Christ; see Twelve Caesars, 197n1. Many other commentators either agree with this view or a similar one, or they point out that this is the majority scholarly position. Such a list includes Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 142; Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 29–39, esp. 37–38. Martin Hengel notes that the confused spellings were probably the case for both Suetonius as well as Tacitus too, while they were evidently still speaking about Jesus; see Martin Hengel, The Atonement, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 37; Kee, What Can We Know, 9; Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History, 33; Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 21; François Amiot, “Jesus: A Historical Person,” 8; James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, “The Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Introduction,” in Historical Jesus: Five Views, 47; Darrell L. Bock, “The Historical Jesus: An Evangelical View,” in Historical Jesus: Five Views, 253n5; cf. N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 556n14. Robert M. Price is one of the scholars who disagrees, holding that “Chrestus” refers to the instigator of the riots in Rome, where Emperor Claudius kicked the Jews out of the city about AD 49; see Price, “Response to Darrell L. Bock” in Historical Jesus: Five Views, 285. France thinks that we cannot be sure what Suetonius may have meant by the use of this name; see Evidence for Jesus, 40–42.

87 Suetonius, Nero 16.

88 John Granger Cook, “Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: A Second Century Anachronism?,” Vigiliae Christianae 74 (2020): 237–64.

89 Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 29–30.

90 Bruce, 30; cf. Anderson, Christianity, 19.

91 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 20. Van Voorst, incidentally, spells Thallus’s name “Thallos.”

92 Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 12–13; Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 18.

93 Maurice Goguel, The Life of Jesus, trans. Olive Wyon (New York: Macmillan, 1933), 91–93.

94 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, chiefly 22.

95 Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 18.

96 Africanus, Chronographiai, frg. 18. Translation of Julius Africanus from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 14 vols. (1886–1889; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 6:130.

97 See the discussion below on the Talmud, esp. b. Sanhedrin 43a.

98 Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 12–13.

99 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 20–21.

100 Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 24.

101 Translation from Pliny, Letters, trans. William Melmoth, rev. W. M. L. Hutchinson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), 2:401–5.

102 Translation of Eusebius’s Church History as printed in Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History in Palestine. And an Historical View of the Council of Nice, ed. Apostle Arne Horn (Lulu.com, 2018), 106.

103 See “Benediction 12,” in The New Testament Background: Selected Documents, ed. C. K. Barrett (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), 166–67. This is repeated by Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 25 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

104 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 34–35; also, Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 26.

105 For many other details, see Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 54–55.

106 A good guide through many of these detailed issues is Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, esp. 104–22.

107 Translation from The Babylonian Talmud, trans. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), 3281.

108 The Greek term for cross, stauros, is found in references like Matt 27:31 and Mark 15:13, 14, 20, 27.

109 As shown by the martyrdoms of both Stephen (Acts 7:57–8:2) and James the brother of Jesus (Josephus, Ant. 20.9).

110 Besides b. Sanhedrin 43a and 107b, cf. also b. Sanhedrin 106a; b. Sotah 47a.

111 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 32–36; cf. Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 114–15.

112 For instance, see y. Yevamot 4:3, 49a.

113 See b. Hagigah 4b; b. Yoma 66d; b. Sanhedrin 106a; m. Yevamot 4:13; t. Yevamot 3:3–4.

114 Cels. 1.32. Celsus’s major work criticizing Christians no longer exists, but Origen’s response seems careful and systematic enough to clarify the specifics of Celsus’s critique. In fact, Origen’s answers to Celsus as a whole are so detailed that his document is usually thought to provide almost a blow-by-blow idea of Celsus’s many complaints. An attempt to reconstruct Celsus in light of Origen is found in Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians, trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). Hoffman’s lengthy introduction provides many details on the background and setting for this debate. For Origen’s critique of Celsus, see Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 31n3 on the specific idea mentioned above.

115 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 116–17; on the double connection between the Talmud and Celsus; see also Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 30–31.

116 See b. Sanhedrin 43a, where this reference is apparently a third-century addition to the earlier material in this section of the Talmud.

117 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 104–22.

118 Translation from Lucian, “The Death of Peregrine,” in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, trans. H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905), 4:79–94.

119 As pointed out by William L. Lane in a helpful article on the message of Hebrews interpreted in the context of Lucian of Samosata; see “Unexpected Light on Hebrews 13:1–6 from a Second Century Source,” Perspectives in Religion 9 (1982): esp. 273–74.

120 Van Voorst lists Joseph Blinzer, Craig Evans, and probably F. F. Bruce (though Bruce seems to prefer the second or third century on 31n21) as placing Mara’s comments in the first century, while Richard France and Raymond E. Brown think it dates between AD 70 and into the second century along with a couple of others (P. Moreau and Léon Dufour) who place the letter from AD 73 onward. Van Voorst himself favors a second-century date (perhaps even later in the century) as being somewhat more likely than the end of the first century; see Jesus outside the New Testament, 56–57.

121 British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Add. 14, 658. For this text and translation, see Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 31.

122 Von Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 189.

123 For Dunn, this is a recurring theme; see Jesus Remembered, 58–65 (including n. 165), 161–65.

124 Dunn, 165.

125 Dunn, 59.

126 See esp. the detailed response in Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:112–66. Cf. also Marginal Jew, 2:332–33. The quotation is from this latter source.

127 Johnson, Real Jesus, 22.

128 Ehrman, New Testament, 44.

129 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 189, 201; also dating the Gospel of Thomas to about AD 150 is F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1370. France likewise dates the Gospel of Thomas’s earliest form to about 150; see Evidence for Jesus, 77. But cf. also Helmut Koester, “Gospel of Thomas,” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James Robinson (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977), 117; Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), xv–xvi; Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 212–13; Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 310.

130 Translation from Thomas O. Lambdin, https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/Gospel%20of%20Thomas%20Lambdin.pdf.

131 See Robert Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 183–84.

132 Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 112. France is another scholar who agrees here; see Evidence for Jesus, 75.

133 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 203.

134 For scholarly views on this question of authorship, see Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon, 1963), 40; Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 5, 128–34; George W. MacRae, “Introduction to The Gospel of Truth,” in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 37.

135 The translation used here is Robinson’s Nag Hammadi Library.

136 Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 109.

137 Frederick Wisse, “Introduction to the Apocryphon of John,” in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 98; Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, 109–12; Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 40, 199–205; Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 49.

138 Translation as printed in The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, ed. James M. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 99. Brackets indicate places where the text of the damaged manuscript has been restored by the editors.

139 Malcolm L. Peel, “Introduction to the Treatise on the Resurrection,” in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 50.

140 The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James McConkey Robinson, trans. members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 51.

141 For instance, as in the Second Discourse of Great Seth 55:9–56:19.

142 The Gospel of Judas (ca. AD 150) was not treated as a separate text here, chiefly because virtually the entire treatise is an exceptionally esoteric dialogue that exhibits exceptionally little interest in or relation to history. True, it records that Jesus was a great miracle worker (34) and that he called twelve disciples (34). Jesus also predicts that the human body that clothes him will be tortured but that none of the culprits will hurt him (56). Judas will be the hero of the story because he will “sacrifice the human who bears me” (56). Translation from Mark M. Mattison, gospels.net website, https://www.gospels.net/judas. For a brief critique, see the insightful comments by Nicholas Perrin, The Judas Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006).

143 It should be noted that the Acts of Pontius Pilate referred to here should not be confused with the apocryphal Gospel known as the Acts of Pilate, which was probably written to fill the gap of records already believed to exist.

144 Daniel-Rops, “Silence of Jesus’ Contemporaries,” 14.

145 Quotations from Justin Martyr and Tertullian are from volume 3 of Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, n.p.

146 See Bruce, New Testament Documents, 116, for an analysis of Tertullian’s statement.

147 Daniel-Rops, “Silence of Jesus’ Contemporaries,” 14.

148 See Anderson, Christianity, 19.

149 Translation from Philip Schaff, ANF04: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, at https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.ii.xiv.html.

150 Julius Africanus, frg. 18.

151 Bart Ehrman opts for a date of about AD 120 for the Gospel of Peter ; see Ehrman, New Testament, 44, 184. Raymond Brown prefers the first half of the second century; see Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1342–43. N. T. Wright in Resurrection of the Son of God, 592, and Darrell Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth behind Alternative Christianities (Nashville: Nelson, 2006), 218, are typical of many scholars in dating the Gospel of Peter to the mid-second century. Cf. also Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 209. John Dominic Crossan is one of a smaller minority of scholars who date the earliest portions of the Gospel of Peter to the mid-first century in Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 193.

152 As presumed by Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 23.

153 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 22–25, 193, 218–27.

154 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 592–94.

155 R. Joseph Hoffmann, “General Introduction,” in On the True Doctrine, 29–30, 44–45. We will be following the pagination of Hoffmann’s text here.

156 The critique of Celsus’s challenges will be addressed when Celsus’s work is revisited in the second volume of this series.

157 Hoffmann, On the True Doctrine, 54, 57.

158 Hoffmann, 57–61, 64, 66, 89–90, 98–99.

159 Hoffmann, 65.

160 Hoffmann, 59.

161 Hoffmann, 62, 66–72, 90.

162 Hoffmann, 116–17.

163 Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 19–20.

164 Joe Zias and James H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992); Nicu Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remain from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970); Vilhelm Moller-Christensen, “Skeletal Remains from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 26 (1976); Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles, “The Crucified Man from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,” Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1985); Cook, Crucifixion, 107, 189–90, 263n189, 382, 387n161.

165 Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202–3 (see chap. 1, n. 24). For further evaluation of this thesis, see Franz Cumont, “Un rescrit impérial sur la violation de sèpulture,” Revue historique 163 (1930): 241–66; F. de Zulueta, “Violation of Sepulture in Palestine at the Beginning of the Christian Era,” Journal of Roman Studies 22, no. 2 (1932): 184–97. A more recent alternative view argues that this stone does not refer to Jesus at all, providing another reason for considering this matter to be unresolvable at present. For this latter perspective, see Kyle Harper, Michael McCormick, Matthew Hamilton, Chantal Peiffert, Raymond Michels, and Michael Engel, “Establishing the Provenance of the Nazareth Inscription: Using Stable Isotopes to Resolve a Historic Controversy and Trace Ancient Marble Production,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020): 102228; H. F. Stander, “The Nazareth Inscription Revisited,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 15 (2004): 254–66; Bower, “Relic’s Origins May Refute Tie to Jesus: Nazareth Inscription’s Marble Is Traced to a Greek Quarry,” Science News 197 (2020): 13.

166 For the initial data presented above, see Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story and Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus and His Family (New York: HarperCollins, 2003). For Shank’s conclusions, see 50, 64; for Witherington’s conclusions, see 219–20, with Witherington even thinking that this ossuary and its inscription points to the truth of Jesus’s resurrection itself (220)! Also Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 15–22.

167 See Mark Antonacci, Test the Shroud: At the Atomic and Molecular Levels (Brentwood, TN: Forefront, 2015). For a popular and very informative treatment, see Mary Whanger and Alan Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery (Franklin, TN: Providence House, 1998); but compare Cook, Crucifixion, 430n72, 435n95.

168 With regard to the authors and archaeological objects noted in this section, the references listed above and hence are not repeated here.

169 Examples of the sources concerning which we raised various kinds of historical doubts were especially the four gnostic works, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, and the Toledot Yeshu (with the last example having been discussed earlier). Some will raise questions about the Nazareth Decree, the James Ossuary, and the Shroud of Turin. Various sources that appear in our listing here would thus be marked with an asterisk according to some researchers. But even if these questioned sources were excluded, there would still remain more than enough to settle the question of Jesus’s historicity. Further, the treatment here does not count New Testament or early postcanonical Christian texts. For further details on the overall picture, see Habermas, Historical Jesus, chaps. 2, 7–11.

170 Of course, critics such as Celsus (and perhaps Josephus) reported the Christian belief in these seemingly supernatural items without accepting them.

171 See the excursus below for further details regarding this document.

172 Celsus also notes at many points that Christians were credulous enough to be deluded by Jesus’s magical arts, illusions, and sorcery.

173 Ehrman thinks the Gospels are basically unreliable; see Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperCollins, 2014), 88–93, 125, 133–36. Yet even here, he is correct when he notes that this does not mean that the Gospels do not present much reliable historical information (93, 103, 133). Further, Ehrman notes that “nearly everyone agrees” with this last statement about good historical information still being drawn from these books (94). Neither is this last point true simply because “the Gospels say so” but because “the Gospels can and should be treated as historical sources, no different from other historical sources infused with the author’s biases”; quote from Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74. Other atheist, agnostic, and non-Christian New Testament scholars have made somewhat related comments on what can be gained from New Testament texts. A few of these researchers include Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 37–39, Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 14–19, 22 (see chap. 1, n. 42); and Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), 95–99, 124–31.

174 Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 12–15.

175 Cf. Grant, Jesus, 199–200 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

176 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 140–41, 290–91.

177 See Justin Martyr, Dial. 108; Tertullian, Spect. 30. Klausner also comments on Jewish tradition that may have a bearing on the circulation of these accounts in Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 51.

178 Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 5 (see chap. 1, n. 40).

179 Maier, 6.

180 Grant, Jesus, 176.

181 These hypotheses and others are addressed in great detail in the next volume of this study, including the many critically attested historical facts that refute these suppositions. Examples of the huge numbers of critical scholars who reject them are also presented. These facts are precisely why virtually no scholar has taken one of these options as their favored thesis in well over 200 years!

182 See Sean McDowell’s excellent study The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (Surrey: Ashgate, 2015) for a potpourri of data on these issues. Cf. also Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.9; 2.23, 25, for accounts of the martyrdom of several of the disciples.

183 For a good example, see Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus, who lists no proponent of this theory since 1778.

184 On more recent rejections of these fraud theories since the nineteenth-century testimony from Schweitzer, see Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4.1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, 340 (see chap. 5, n. 29); Raymond Brown, “The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,” Commonweal 87 (1967): 233.

185 Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 159 (see chap. 1, n. 3).

186 The quotation is from Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3. See also Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (New York: Penguin, 2004); Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 84 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

187 Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 11 (see chap. 4, n. 54). A recent study volume in comparative religion draws similar conclusions on the stronger sources and concepts for Christianity; see Paul Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad: A Comparative Study (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), esp. 6, 18; cf. also 19, 127–31, 242–44.

188 Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 12 for this quotation, plus 34.

189 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 78.

190 Ehrman, 339.

191 Maier, First Easter, 117–18 (see chap. 2, n. 10).

192 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 51–53.

193 Maier, First Easter, 118–19.

194 Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 51, 53–54.

7

A Definition of Miracle

Strangely enough, just formulating a definition of a miracle is far from an easy task. As Yujin Nagasawa explains, “The concept of a miracle is an elusive one. We all know roughly what it is and we can easily cite some well-known examples. Yet we struggle to state a precise definition. In fact, the proper definition of a miracle has been a matter of dispute among philosophers for centuries.”1 Robert Bruce Mullin concurs: defining miracles “is a surprisingly difficult question, particularly when the question is directed to modern miracles.” Throughout this process, “no unanimity was ever achieved.” In fact, Mullin reports that he has assembled “forty-eight separate contemporary definitions of the term, all slightly different.”2 As we will perceive here, many of these differences arise from un-believers and believers alike lining up across an entire spectrum on several key issues.

Probably the best-known discussion of the subject, including a definition of miracle, was formulated by the famous eighteenth-century Scottish skeptical philosopher David Hume, who explained, “A miracle may be accurately defined, a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”3 In this essay, Hume added a number of other assertions and clarifications regarding the topic, but this definition should be sufficient as we begin. Many of Hume’s notions will be mentioned and critiqued in other chapters.

Nagasawa lists eight “common features of a miracle” that may contribute to a definition. These aspects include ideas of “wonder and amazement” exceeding the expectations of individuals; being “beyond human control,” including deep, mysterious aspects; having positive outcomes; involving “religiously significant” meanings; being performed intentionally by an agent; and being “a violation of the laws of nature.”4 Of course, many nuances and differences exist among commentators, along with perhaps still additional ideas, such as which scholars prefer which notions or perhaps wish to incorporate still other ideas.

Nagasawa simplifies and assimilates this list of aspects into his brief definition: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature that is caused by an intentional agent; and it has religious significance.”5 By this definition, Jesus changing water to wine or raising someone from the dead would indeed be miraculous. But someone narrowly avoiding a serious accident would not be a miracle—not because God could not have caused the escape, but because it fails to meet other qualifications of a miracle.6

Even though Nagasawa utilizes a fairly straightforward definition of miracles, just reading his first chapter indicates there are still numerous twists and turns that are not initially obvious. Perhaps this is partially the advantage of constructing a simpler, uncomplicated notion that does not involve some of the tougher issues. C. S. Lewis chose to define a miracle as just “an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”7 It would be difficult to conceive of a briefer definition!

One of the most prominent philosophers of this generation, Richard Swinburne, defines a miracle this way: “A miracle is an event of an extraordinary kind, brought about by a god, and of religious significance.”8 Such religious meaning could be to “contribute significantly toward a holy divine purpose for the world” or to approve doctrine.9

Canadian philosopher Robert A. Larmer specializes in this topic. Emerging from his years of study is his definition of miracle as “an unusual and religiously significant event which reveals and furthers God’s purposes, is beyond the power of physical nature to produce, and is caused by an agent who transcends physical nature.”10 Larmer takes careful aim at definitions of miracles, like that of Nagasawa, that define these events so that they violate the laws of nature.11

Mixing and Matching Definitional Aspects

Obviously, many other definitions of miracle could be stated and developed here. But these provide some key ideas as well as several approximate parameters as to where these discussions might head. One of the most intriguing items to emerge even from a short overview is that definitions of miracle are not easy to parse or identify based on whether the scholar providing the comments favors or disfavors the actual occurrence of miracles, even as the above definitions have already shown.12 Two theists (even two Christian theists) or two skeptics could easily take issue with each other over items like starting points, preliminary definitions, or even final conclusions.

Hume is a significant case in point. It is sometimes remarked, especially by those who do not know Hume’s philosophical works or his skeptical reputation, that his definition of miracles at least leaves him open to their occurrence or that he even favors them! These thoughts seem to occur to those who think Hume ought not to have held that these events require the act of God or other invisible agents (perhaps like angels?), almost as if he were bringing supernatural ideas into the issue strictly by definition! But few scholars have disfavored miracles more than Hume, at least according to the more traditional interpretations of his essay.13 True, his definition attempts to set the restrictions for such an event—in effect, to point out where the problem areas lie. But he does not think there are events that can overcome these problems.

Regarding the idea that there is a range of views expressed that often separate even those who otherwise agree on the larger overall picture, certainly a chief or even forceful disagreement pertains to a central issue here. Namely, must miracles break or violate the laws of nature? R. F. Holland remarks, “Most people think of a miracle as a violation of natural law; and a good many of those who regard the miraculous in this way incline to the idea that miracles are impossible.”14 True to form here, Paul Tillich concurs on the popularity of this notion: “The word ‘miracle,’ according to the ordinary definition, designates a happening that contradicts the laws of nature.”15 Then, just as suggested by Holland, Tillich almost immediately adds that these events do not occur.16

If Holland’s above comment is correct, his audience might read further into it, concluding that skeptical scholars might purposely take a “hard” position by positing miracles as being largely or strictly at odds with nature to posit or even create a higher mountain for these “events” to overcome! To be sure, skeptical scholars may argue from a plethora of different angles and even oppose each other at times. Still, a quick survey of some scholars who accept the notion that miracles would either break (or seem to break) the laws of nature or natural law in some sense does indicate that a high preponderance of them do indeed oppose the existence of miracles.17

Likewise, those researchers who favor the existence of miracles also tend to gravitate toward rejecting the idea that miracles must necessarily break the laws of nature. Once again, there are a wide number of viewpoints here, some of which even disagree strongly with each other.18 Further, many other recent scholars whose publications oppose Hume’s essay “Of Miracles” would add various additional comments on whether miracles would need to break the laws of nature.19 Certainly the relationship between miraculous events and the laws of nature is one of the most central and crucial issues in this dialogue, if not the chief question.20

The Laws of Nature

So what are the laws of nature then? And how would we know an exception to them even if one occurred? Intriguingly, comparatively few philosophers, theologians, historians, or scientists—both pro or con on the miracles spectrum—appear to want to weigh in on these basic, often definitional, matters. They are far from simple questions.

Flew’s short definition of a law of nature is “a regularity or symmetry in nature.”21 Flew calls for a strong notion of natural law as well as evidence of real exceptions to those laws,22 though this move and other similar ones actually led Flew to later change worldviews!23 Citing Ninian Smart, Swinburne explains the pro-Humean perspective on violating a law of nature this way: “Those who, like Hume, have used this or a similar expression have intended to mean by it an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature.”24

For his part, Swinburne defines his notion of nature’s laws like this: “Laws of nature are principles embedded in nature determining what happens. They may be fundamental or derivative.” These derivative laws “are consequences of fundamental laws, which determine what happens under limited conditions (e.g. in certain spatio-temporal regions) in the absence of intervention. Exactly what the fundamental laws of nature are we do not know yet.”25

Further, these natural laws may be either deterministic or indeterministic (i.e., probabilistic). It needs to be remembered that even the deterministic variety can be set aside by a superior power, such as if God exists and chooses to act in the natural realm.26 Even less would indeterministic or probabilistic laws impede miraculous events because these “regulations” spell out what happens on most occasions. Even odd natural events, let alone miraculous ones, would just get mixed into nature when or if they occur. Anomalies then, either of a natural or a supernatural variety, are not an issue. And again, any of these laws may be exceeded by a God who acts.27

Skeptical readers might judge that such comments have less force because these are the views of a prominent theist. But it should be added here that Antony Flew even in his atheist days,28 atheist J. L. Mackie,29 and naturalistic philosopher Larry Shapiro,30 plus other skeptical scholars,31 allow that the laws of nature potentially could be trumped by a God with particular characteristics and will. Of course, theists would have to show that such a situation has obtained. But the point here is that even skeptics may allow that the laws of nature, however they are contrived, do not provide some automatic, impenetrable barrier against miracles since they could possibly be “defeated” by a stronger power.32 So, “all claims about what are the laws of nature are corrigible. However much support any purported law has at the moment, one day it may prove to be no true law.”33

Of the many examples of this truth that might be chosen, a case in point is the discovery and identification of electrons by J. J. Thompson, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1906. The research of Niels Bohr on electrons also earned him a Nobel Prize in 1922, though in the process he disagreed with some important areas of Thompson’s views. However, the current model for research on electrons used by recent quantum physicists has moved beyond Bohr in crucial concepts involving the electron, including whether the basic universal constituents are even physical at all. Did Thompson’s electrons ever exist? Did Bohr’s electrons ever exist? Do electrons even exist at all today?34

This is a simple reminder that scientific views in general, including the current concepts of the laws of nature, are almost assuredly not the last word on these subjects.35 Fascinatingly, Swinburne thinks that Hume “would, I think, have been satisfied with my amended understanding of a law of nature.”36

Major changes and new understandings have emerged through the years then. “From the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century most men believed that all natural laws were universal. . . . In this century many scientists have come to hold that the fundamental natural laws are statistical.”37 David and Randall Basinger add that at least since the time of Hume, natural laws “have basically been understood to be descriptive generalizations.”38 German physicist Werner Schaaffs concludes that “even the physicist must officially concede the possibility of intervention by God.”39 All definitions and clarifications aside, Swinburne and Mackie agree that we can still apply a sort of “eye test” to potential miracle claims and recognize them as such, with both of these influential philosophers gazing across the “conceptual fence of miracles” while still providing brief lists of occurrences that, if they obtained, could be considered as miracles, at least until someone moves the goalposts!40

To consider the matter further, there are some major limitations to what the laws of nature actually can and cannot “do.” In the long, footnoted list of skeptical scholars above who prefer the “breaking the laws of nature” definition of miracles, many of them appear to make this move basically to serve as insurmountable objections to the existence of miracles.

But how many scholars have taken the time to actually think through these matters in detail? The laws of nature actually do nothing! This is obviously a facetious question, but can one of these laws simply reach out and club a miracle to death before it manifests itself? Or may a law of nature (as is probably more often the case) be visualized as some sort of barrier which, like the Great Wall of China, keeps both barbarian marauders and miracles from invading its territory? As C. S. Lewis states so well, “However far you traced the story back you would never find the laws of Nature causing anything. . . . In the whole history of the universe the laws of Nature have never produced a single event.”41

As we have already stated, the laws of nature are generally viewed by scholars today as statistical generalizations that state or describe what usually occurs in the course of nature under this or that condition. But as is widely known, no matter how high the probability that water does not on its own turn into wine, there is also at least a slight statistical possibility that it could indeed happen immediately. As Schaaffs explains the matter, “Though a miracle is a rare, or perhaps even unique, event or experience, quite out of the ordinary, it can with comparative ease, as our example shows, be placed in a statistical framework.”42 Or as Schaaffs explains elsewhere, “Even the greatest improbability cannot rule out the possibility that the event will occur tomorrow.”43

A last, very crucial point to mention here is that whether the scholars in question support or oppose the historicity of miracle claims, there is almost unanimous agreement from researchers on both sides of the debate that historical research can be a very positive endeavor and can be conducted in such a way as to yield strong, factual results.44 In other words, even exceptionally skeptical scholars—such as the logical positivists up through the first half of the twentieth century, the radical idealists from the late nineteenth century up through the mid-twentieth century, or other postmodern strains like those developed by various French scholars in contemporary European forms—all still find much value in good historiography.45 As Mackie states, certain categories of independent testimonial research “can be more powerful evidence than Hume’s discussion would suggest.”46

These are crucial matters, in that when pro-miracle scholars introduce the inevitable versions of historical arguments in either old or new guises, they may well be opposed by their anti-miracle counterparts, but not because the latter reject historical arguments per se. Thus, there is at least some decisive common ground on the nature of historiography here, though the relevant dialogues could be over the theory itself as well as the nature of the miracle claim.

A Contemporary Definition of Miracle

The preceding background allows us to move ahead and propose a definition of miracle that incorporates many of the relevant items already discussed in this chapter. For the purposes of this research project we will define the concept this way: “A miracle is a dynamic, specialized event that nature is incapable of producing on its own, that temporarily supersedes (or appears to supersede) the normally observed, known pattern of nature. Such an event would be brought about by the power of God or another supernatural agent for the express purpose of acting as a sign or pointer to verify or draw attention to a person or message.”47 Several key phrases and concepts are featured in this definition and each could be debated.

A dynamic, specialized event: Though perhaps the least crucial of the phrases in this definition, these words still make a clarifying statement concerning the nature of miracles. Rather than being static, inert manifestations seemingly subject to or simply fitting into line as with nature’s other happenings, miracles may be described rather metaphorically as dynamic events that have the potential to energize creation. This capacity is due to their ontological status as higher-order events sent more or less directly from the hand of God and thus being capable of invigorating the everyday world. In this sense, miracles are like full-color occurrences that can perk up an otherwise black-and-white reality. This is not to be taken in the sense of the world being ugly, drab, or inert, for it too is the Lord’s creation.

The point is rather that when God touches the world, it is simply not going to be the same place again. This is all because the world, at least in the most affected areas, has morphed into a statelier domain than was previously the case.

Beyond their dynamism, this energizing capability of miracles is also derived from their specialized character. Following creation, the New Testament speaks of the sustaining power of Jesus Christ in the world as the Lord, again metaphorically, unifies, cements, arranges, and orders his handiwork. To be sure, this is a beautifully fine-tuned world and process in itself. Still, what occurs in a miracle may be described as zeroing in on a particular situation with a new power, focused on perhaps rectifying a particular problem or enabling creation to move to the next step—what it cannot do apart from the miracle. The miracle has the advantage in comparison because the building blocks that are part and parcel of these supernatural events are of a higher magnitude and order.

As C. S. Lewis delineated in his classic text on this subject, the miracle’s “cause is the activity of God. . . . In the forward direction . . . it is interlocked with all Nature just like any other event.” But as Lewis goes on to state, the miracle is interlocked in the backward direction to the hand of God.48 That is what has been referred to in this chapter as the miracle’s chief dynamistic and specialized characteristics.

That nature is incapable of producing on its own: Since a miracle would, by definition, be an act of God or another supernatural agent (as is the general description from both friends and foes alike), though miracles may fit into nature once they occur (even quite naturally so), miracles do not originate in or by nature. So these supernatural events cannot result from purely natural causes inside a natural system.

This supernatural-natural division is quite relevant in deciding whether nature could or could not produce miracles. Of course, any potentially miraculous events would have to be shown evidentially rather than just be assumed to have occurred. But if any distinctive species of miracles were established, the recognition of their nonnatural cause would presumably follow. For example, it is difficult to argue that nature could produce life that has been so radically changed from nonlife or from seriously ill bodies, as in the biblical accounts involving the true healing of dead organs and terminally diseased bodies. Moreover, the inability of nature to produce such a cause would be even more obvious with a stepped-up case like the raising of Lazarus or another person from the dead. Even far beyond these examples would be an ex nihilo original creation where the universe appeared suddenly out of absolutely nothing (even given a modern scientific scenario). After all, such an event could hardly come from nature when there was no nature from which it could come!

Potentially moving up another level still, it could be argued that it would even be more incredible yet if an additional sort of miracle obtained, one that involved the appearance of an entirely new, transformed order of life—immortal heavenly life—as it broke into the universe for the first time. This might be the case in several instances, while being most obvious in the event of the resurrection of Jesus. Rather amazingly, Hume, Mackie, Flew, and other skeptics on one side, along with Swinburne and most other theistic scholars on the other, all attest from almost totally different perspectives that no power in nature is capable of raising the dead.49 To this end, even a case like that of Lazarus’s would be very special in spite of the individual being required to die again. In contrast, the utter uniqueness of Jesus’s resurrection, where he would never have to undergo death again, living in his resurrected immortal body, would be far more incredible.50

The upshot of this reasoning for both sides is that the potential event of Jesus’s resurrection, if it happened, would fit the definition of a miracle occurring as an act of God and not originating with nature. Philosopher Stephen Davis asserts, “It must be admitted that with the resurrection we are talking not just about a highly unusual event but an event which, given our best knowledge of the workings of the world, seems causally impossible.”51 Then Davis continues, “The resurrection of Jesus appears to be a hard miracle—skeptics apparently cannot agree that it has occurred (not as the event is recorded in the Gospels, at any rate) without abandoning religious skepticism.”52 Though strictly beyond our immediate topic, Davis makes an incredible comment that the occurrence of Jesus’s resurrection could be instrumental in challenging and even changing worldviews—in this case, skepticism of one sort or another.

If such a scenario obtains, then it would seem certain that nature would be entirely incapable of producing on its own at least some miraculous events, especially like creation or the resurrection of Jesus. Such scenarios would fulfill the above definition of a miracle, even according to the agreement of key atheistic and other highly skeptical scholars. But further, as we have seen in Davis’s second quotation above regarding the nullifying or changing of one’s worldview, the resulting conclusions of such recognition could indeed be far-reaching.

Temporarily supersedes (or appears to supersede) the normally observed, known pattern of nature: Many scholars consider this to be the major, or at least the most difficult, question in defining a miracle. What is the relationship between these purported events and nature’s laws?

We have seen that scholars who disfavor the actual occurrence of miracles seem to prefer the wording of a “violation” or “breaking” of a law of nature, probably because these more difficult terms would seem to make the theistic task more difficult to accomplish. As C. S. Lewis testifies, when he was an atheist, he considered the idea of a God who broke his own laws of nature to be absolutely repugnant. Why would anyone wish to spoil such a beautiful world? A miracle seemed like a sort of forced entry foisted upon an otherwise gorgeous reality that Lewis thought could get along quite well by itself and that he dearly wished would remain pristine.53 Viewed from this angle, the words violate and break are quite derogatory, not to mention the rougher prerequisites seemingly intended for the theists to overcome.

On the other side, proponents of miracles more often favor the “softer” idea of setting aside nature’s laws momentarily without employing more forceful language. After his conversion, Lewis arrived at the view that it is “inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature.”54 Though some may perceive the change to be slight, or nothing more than a matter of emphasis, or even just a plain confusing contrast of ideas, Lewis came to view miracles as suspensions or interruptions in nature’s normal process, adjustments that improved and actually made an already good reality even better.55

Broken things usually need to be repaired to function properly. Yet the laws of nature have never required mending or recreating, since nothing natural has been broken, shattered, or in any way destroyed at any time due to miraculous intervention or insertion. As Lewis points out later, it might even be asserted that nature would be better off following the interventions.

So perhaps it is better to arrive at a sort of amalgamated position or idea here. Stronger terms like violated or broken may be employed on one side, and temporarily suspended or set aside may be the favorites on the other, but it appears the same potential exceptions are being described similarly. Call it whatever is preferred, but the main question concerns whether events have occurred that set aside nature’s laws in some fashion. After all, it is agreed across the board that regularities in nature definitely exist. As Mackie asserts, both sides, pro and con, “need the notion of a well-established law of nature.”56

Swinburne described such miraculous events rather succinctly:

For these latter reasons it seems not unnatural to describe E as a non-repeatable counter-instance to a law of nature L. . . . To say that a certain such formula is a law is to say that virtually invariably its predictions are true and that any exceptions to its operation cannot be accounted for by another formula which could be taken as a law . . . it is clearly a coherent way of talking . . . in such a case the conceptually impossible would occur.57

For our purposes, then, miraculous intervention will be defined and described as the manifestation or presence of divine actions that temporarily or momentarily overrule or supersede nature’s normally observed, lawful pattern of events, or that appear to do so. In these cases, nature’s laws can be suspended or interrupted for a brief time by a stronger power while remaining unbroken.58

Such an event is brought about by the power of God or another supernatural agent: Much of the foregoing discussion has already been directed to the general subject of God’s possible intervention in history. Antony Flew’s philosophical dictionary notes that, most commonly, a miracle has been thought of as “an act that manifests divine power.”59 Should such an event occur, what can be said about the nature and characteristics of such a being? What sort of God would seem to be required by the preceding discussion?

It would certainly seem that the impersonal god of mainline pantheism would not be much of a candidate for producing miracles. A god described as the world process itself is not much of a contender for being personally concerned about human affairs or acting in history! As C. S. Lewis states, “The Pantheist’s God does nothing, demands nothing. He is there if you wish for Him, like a book on a shelf. He will not pursue you.”60 This does not fit anything like the scenario that has been outlined in this study.

The God of classical deism is somewhat closer, having created the world apparently miraculously. Further, the deistic God could potentially exhibit some characteristics of a personal being too, given that the world’s creation probably would have some relationship to the human beings within it. But that single supernatural event in the beginning, no matter how monumental, would not seem to invoke anywhere near enough actions and interest in human life to qualify for the utter lack of miraculous intervention ever since that time. The deistic God simply does not get involved with the everyday affairs of mice and men, let alone manifest any concern for the rest of the universe.

But if miracles have indeed occurred, especially if they have done so fairly regularly and continuously through the ages, it would definitely appear that God would need to be a theistic being of some variety who could and did choose to act in meaningful ways—like creation, but far beyond. God would have to be personal as well, if the sort of events that we have envisioned so far are fairly representative of the whole, for these occurrences clearly were intertwined with human life and growth. However, since there are many different religious expressions, writings, and teachings around the world regarding the characteristics of who this divine being is, as well as what was done, taught, and required, much additional work will have to be done to decipher the very best answers. These issues remain for other discussions beyond our definitional issues here.

One other ingredient on this definitional point also allows that the miraculous agent could be another supernatural being beyond God, such as an angel or a demon. That many persons do not believe in one or both of these entities is beside the point. This idea goes back to David Hume as well as to other skeptics, and so it does not require that these entities actually exist. This is merely a definition of what a miracle might involve if one would obtain. If not, it remains a definition in words only. For that matter, other beings could be involved, including humans, but this would involve still more demarcating beyond our intent here.

For the express purpose of verifying or drawing attention to a person or message: Lastly, what is the purpose of a miracle? Some commonly mentioned and key definitional ingredients are most commonly mentioned among a number of wide-ranging ideas presented here. One of these is the prevalence of power (the Greek dunamis and related concepts).61 These terms may be related to the person who wields the power (indicated by the stem duna-, as in dunatos), including God. In a Greek or larger Hellenistic context, God could be taken in pantheistic or transcendent senses but often as unrelated, disconnected from creation, or as “neutral” or more as a force. Demons or magicians may be in view as well. The overall notions tend to indicate dynamic rather than static power.62

In the Old Testament world, God is portrayed quite differently. The emphasis is monotheistic and related to God’s personal involvement with creation. The sense in which God’s power is most manifest encompasses creation, sustaining the created order, and particularly with God’s actions in history.63 In the New Testament, this power is revealed most of all in the person of Jesus, especially in his death and resurrection. Power is also revealed in demonic activity and in other persons, though the demonic forces are defeated by Jesus’s power as revealed especially in his resurrection from the dead. In both Testaments, these words are often translated from the Hebrew and Greek (such as dunamis) as “miracle” and other similar terms that indicate and emphasize the mighty, even explosive, force behind such supernatural demonstrations.64

Besides a miracle involving a great power being exerted through events and manifestations (as indicated by dunamis above), there is another key linguistic concept to highlight here. This feature involves a word picture that appears even closer to the definitional point at hand: namely, miracles are called “signs” or “pointers” (Gk. sēmeion).65

In the Old Testament, as with the mark on Cain in Gen 4:15, such a sign potentially drew or directed the onlooker (or the reader) away from the reality of the event at hand (or from the words) to something “which was not present before.” Hence, the sign guides one to posit a meaning that “points beyond itself.” Further, the term concerns something in reality that extends beyond the immediate appearance to something else and usually involves eyewitness perception.66 The immediate sense is often to cause observers to search for something nearby or to consider a deeper sense of meaning elsewhere, with the goal being to locate the inherent purpose of the event that just happened.

In the New Testament, the context often concerns the request for or the providing of a sign that some teaching or message was true, as with the angels who spoke to the shepherds in the fields in Luke 2:12 (also sēmeion). A potential, much debated case is the “sign of Jonah” to which Jesus referred for those Jewish leaders who demanded a heavenly sign, presumably, for how they could ascertain that Jesus was indeed Israel’s Messiah (Matt 12:38–40; 16:1–4; Luke 11:29).67

Like the term dunamis above, sēmeion is also translated as “miracle” or “wonder.” These concepts may be seen, respectively, to embody the notions of power and pointing in the sense of a special event that harnesses huge outlays of force or shifts one’s attention in other directions to focus on additional truth. The notions could also presumably be combined to encompass both aspects of an extraordinary power that points beyond itself to truth. It might be described as a sense of wondering why this event just happened or what it means.

Of course, at this point some may wonder why biblical word studies are setting the pace for our discussion of the philosophical nature of miracles. So why is this the case, it may be objected, when such linguistic studies do not necessarily tell us why something should operate in a certain way today? Initially, it should be recalled that when we looked at the meaning of the terms power and sign, we looked way beyond the biblical text alone, searching Hellenistic and gnostic contexts too. It must be allowed that this range of meaning encompassed a good part of at least the northern portion of the Mediterranean world!

Further, atheists and other skeptical philosophers and theologians recognize from precisely our own modern contexts the importance of a concept where miracles do not happen simply willy-nilly but to express a purpose, goal, or confirmation of one sort or another. Whether or not the notion ultimately obtains, Mackie points out, “The full concept of a miracle requires that the intrusion should be purposive, that it should fulfill the intention of a god or other supernatural being.”68 Flew goes even further, acknowledging that if a miracle such as Jesus’s resurrection occurred, it could serve to evidence a message with respect to Christian beliefs.69 Tillich thought that a definition of miracle would introduce some notions of pointing beyond themselves to truth(s) of some sort, though he shied away from delineating any concrete expressions of what he had in mind.70 Other examples could be mentioned as well.

So in both the ancient Mediterranean and biblical worlds, as well as jumping forward to several of today’s skeptical thinkers, not to mention a probable majority of current pro-miracle scholars, it certainly cannot be called at all odd or prejudiced to end our own definition of miracles by including the idea that miracles would occur for a purpose, such as pointing beyond themselves to truth(s) of some sort. Such is far more likely than these events being done capriciously or whimsically.

The particular nature of the message(s) that might be confirmed would depend on which truths flow best from the notion of God, the miraculous events themselves, the uniqueness of the events, the power involved, and so on. But this last topic takes us well beyond a definition of miracle. This still adds more to the value of our study here. For if the best argument at the end of this study is that the resurrection of Jesus really did occur, then that ultimate message could lead to some crucial discussions!

Conclusion

The chief purpose of this chapter was to survey and arrive at a fair definition of the term miracle including some of its component parts. Having done that, we postulated that on this notion, God or another supernatural agent causes or performs an event in nature which temporarily supersedes, transcends, or sets aside nature’s laws, though without “breaking” them in the process. The end result is the goal of verifying, drawing attention to, or otherwise commending a person or message. Now we must push on to several additional, crucial discussions and conclusions that build on this definition of miracles and keep working forward toward the goals.

Notes

1 Yujin Nagasawa, Miracles: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 1; David Basinger also makes the point regarding the challenges of defining miracles in Basinger, Miracles, Elements in the Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 1–18.

2 Robert Bruce Mullin, Miracles and the Modern Religious Imagination (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 5–6.

3 Section 10, titled “Of Miracles,” in David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in The Essential Works of David Hume, ed. Ralph Cohen (New York: Bantam, 1965), 1:129n3 (Hume’s emphasis).

4 Nagasawa, Miracles, 17.

5 Nagasawa, 18.

6 Nagasawa, 12–18.

7 Lewis, Miracles, 5 (see chap. 4, n. 82).

8 Richard Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle (London: Macmillan, 1970), 1. Swinburne also repeats this definition in his “Introduction” to his later edited volume Miracles, ed. Richard Swinburne (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 2.

9 Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 7–10.

10 Robert A. Larmer, The Legitimacy of Miracle (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014), 3, 36.

11 Larmer, 36–40. Larmer continues this discussion in a later, very helpful fictional dialogue format that draws out many of these ideas; see Larmer, Dialogues on Miracle (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), particularly 1–44. Basinger offers some helpful introductory comments regarding the issue of a miracle being a violation of nature’s laws in Miracles, 6–7, 18–28. Craig Keener defines a miracle in this fashion: “For the general purposes used here, a ‘miracle’ may be defined as an extraordinary event with an unusual supernatural cause, although this definition is problematic from a number of vantage points. It is problematic from conventional theistic perspectives because all that is natural has an ultimate supernatural cause; indeed, even aside from creation, some dramatic biblical miracles such as the parting of the sea include proximate natural causes (such as the strong east wind, Exod 14:21). It is also problematic because ‘extraordinary’ and ‘unusual’ (the adjectives by which I seek to adjust for the first problem) are normally a matter of degree.” See Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 110. Keener comments further, “Granted, a biblical theist would see God typically working through the created order. In biblical narratives, God might do extraordinary acts through a powerful wind (Exod 10:13; 14:21; Num 11:31); some have offered plausible arguments that even the plagues in Egypt intensified the local ecosystem in an extraordinary way” (181, Keener’s emphasis).

12 German physicist Werner Schaaffs seems to be making a similar point with regard to friends and foes alike and how they sometimes line up on these issues. See Schaaffs’s very thoughtful volume, Theology, Physics, and Miracles, trans. Richard L. Renfield (Washington, DC: Canon, 1974), 17.

13 Although as will become more obvious in later chapters, there is a substantial amount of disagreement over exactly what Hume is attempting to argue or pertaining to his reasons for holding that miracles do not occur.

14 R. F. Holland, “The Miraculous,” in Swinburne, Miracles, 53. Holland’s essay was originally published in the American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1965): 43–51.

15 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 1:115.

16 Tillich, 1:116–17. Tillich also points out that the concept of a true miracle involves at least three other ideas: it is “an event which is astonishing, unusual, shaking,” it points to the mystery of being, and lastly it serves as a “sign-event” (1:117).

17 Besides Hume in his essay, “Of Miracles,” others would include Antony Flew, God and Philosophy, rev. ed. (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 149–50; Flew, “Introduction,” in Of Miracles by David Hume (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985), esp. 7–9; also Flew, Hume’s Philosophy of Belief: A Study of His First Inquiry (London: Routledge, 1961), see chap. 8, “Miracles and Methodology,” in particular; Richard Otte, “Schlesinger and Probability,” Faith and Philosophy 10 (1993), 93–98; Jordan Howard Sobel, “On the Evidence of Testimony for Miracles: A Bayesian Interpretation of David Hume’s Analysis,” Philosophical Quarterly 37 (1987): 166–86; Sobel, “Hume’s Theorem on Testimony Sufficient to Establish a Miracle,” Philosophical Quarterly 41 (1991): 229–37; Christine Overall, “Miracles as Evidence against the Existence of God,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 23 (1985): 347–53; J. C. A. Gaskin, “Contrary Miracles Concluded,” Hume Studies (1985): 1–14; Alastair McKinnon, “‘Miracle’ and ‘Paradox,’” American Philosophical Quarterly 4 (1967): 309; J. L. Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 24, 26 (see chap. 1, n. 68); Patrick Nowell-Smith, “Miracles,” in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 251–53; George Chryssides, “Miracles and Agents,” Religious Studies 11 (1975): 319–27; Guy Robinson, “Miracles,” Ratio 9 (1967): 155–66; Malcolm Diamond, “Miracles,” Religious Studies 9 (1967): 320–21; David Owen, “Hume versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities,” in Swinburne, Miracles, 129–32; Francis J. Beckwith, David Hume’s Argument against Miracles: A Critical Analysis (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), 7–8. Though Beckwith is not a skeptic, he is at least willing to work within the Humean parameters. For an intriguing stance that disagrees with perhaps even a majority of Hume’s interpreters, see Chris Slupik, “A New Interpretation of Hume’s ‘Of Miracles,’” Religious Studies 31 (1995): 518–36. We may need to be reminded again that the arguments in this note come from a wide variety of angles and it may not be immediately obvious why a few of them are listed here.

18 For several of these works, see Larry Shapiro, The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 18–19 (in spite of his unqualified dismissal of miracles); Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford: Clarendon, 2003), particularly 17–26; Mullin, Miracles, 6–7; Richard Purtill, “Defining Miracles,” in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 72; cf. Purtill, “Proofs of Miracles and Miracles as Proofs,” Christian Scholar’s Review 6 (1976): 39–51; William Lane Craig, “The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective,” in The Miracles of Jesus, vol. 6 of Gospel Perspectives, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1986), 27, 43; Norman L. Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind: A Defense of Biblical Miracles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 14; David Basinger and Randall Basinger, Philosophy and Miracle: The Contemporary Debate (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1986), 23; David Basinger, “Christian Theism and the Concept of Miracle: Some Epistemological Perplexities,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 18 (1980): 137–38; Dennis Jensen, “The Logic of Miracles,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 33 (1981): 145–53; Holland, “The Miraculous,” in Swinburne, Miracles, 53, 69; Paul J. Dietl, “On Miracles,” American Philosophical Quarterly 5 (1968): 236–45; Schaaffs, Theology, Physics, and Miracles, 27; Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 290–92. The final footnote in Chris Slupik’s essay, “A New Interpretation of Hume’s ‘Of Miracles,’” which is cited in footnote 17 just above, also contains some points that are helpful for this perspective. Earlier in this chapter we already viewed the positions of Larmer and Lewis.

19 For a number of these scholars, see Rodney D. Holder, “Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1998): esp. 60–62; George Mavrodes, “David Hume and Probability of Miracles,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (1998): 176–77; Benjamin F. Armstrong Jr., “Hume on Miracles: Begging-the-Question against Believers,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 9 (1992): 319, 327; John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. the entire host of critiques found in part 1; Earman, “Bayes, Hume, and Miracles,” Faith and Philosophy 10 (1993): esp. 293, 305–6; George N. Schlesinger, “Miracles and Probabilities,” Nous 21 (1987): esp. 219, 230–32; Schlesinger, “The Credibility of Extraordinary Events,” Analysis 51 (1991): 125; Roy A. Sorensen, “Hume’s Scepticism concerning Reports of Miracles,” Analysis 43 (1983): 60; Timothy J. McGrew, “Of Miracles,” in The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives, and Prospects, ed. Graham H. Twelftree (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 152–73.

20 Such as N. T. Wright, History and Eschatology (see chap. 2, n. 1), as repeated throughout his early chapters. Keener adds here, “Likewise many cultures today do not accept the Western dichotomy between natural and supernatural.” See Miracles, 7, also 134. For a discussion of the relationship between the natural and supernatural, see Benjamin Shaw, “Historical Epistemology and Divine Action,” in Raised on the Third Day: Defending the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Essays to Honor the Life’s Work of Gary R. Habermas, ed. David Beck and Michael R. Licona (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 263–88.

21 Flew with Varghese, There Is a God, 96 (see chap. 1, n. 68).

22 Flew, God and Philosophy, 153. Mackie is similar at this point. The Miracle of Theism, 26. In our first of three debates on the resurrection of Jesus, Flew delineated even more forcefully his principle of strong laws with real exceptions; see Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 34–35 (see chap. 1, n. 68).

23 Years later, in 2004, Flew, the best-known philosophical atheist in the world, announced that he had become a theist/deist, interchanging the terms in different contexts. See Antony Flew and Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas,” Philosophia Christi 6 (2004): 197–211. Oddly enough, of the three intellectual reasons that Flew gave for his “conversion” to theism, asking where the laws of nature came from was one of these factors. He knew that, with Hume and others, he had employed the laws of nature over his entire career to offset miracle claims, only to realize that these laws themselves demand order, precision, and especially a grounding other than a one-time chance explosion in the universe, where these laws might even have changed over time! See Flew with Varghese, There Is a God, chap. 5.

24 Swinburne, “Violation of a Law of Nature,” in Swinburne, Miracles, 78.

25 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 17–18.

26 Swinburne, 18. Mackie defines the laws of nature similarly (The Miracle of Theism, 22).

27 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 19–23.

28 Flew, God and Philosophy, esp. 156, also 153; Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 3, 34–35, 49–50.

29 Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 22–26, 28.

30 Shapiro, Miracle Myth, 22, 152–53.

31 Such as Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 343–47 (see chap. 1, n. 30), for example; Basinger and Basinger, Philosophy and Miracle, 13–14, 88, 100.

32 According to Thomas Huxley, Hume’s definition “cannot be justified.” Huxley, “The Order of Nature: Miracles,” in Hume on Miracles, ed. Stanley Tweyman (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1996), 161.

33 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 23.

34 For a brief encapsulation of this scientific progression, see J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 81–83.

35 Thomas S. Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions (see chap. 3, n. 5).

36 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 23; cf. also Swinburne, “Violation of a Law of Nature,” 83–84. Mackie likewise agrees on the corrigibility of inductive hypotheses, depending on the strength of the data. Miracle of Theism, 23.

37 Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 3; similarly, see Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 18.

38 Basinger and Basinger, Philosophy and Miracle, 7.

39 Schaaffs, Theology, Physics and Miracles, 66.

40 Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 22–24; Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 31–32; Swinburne, “Violation of a Law of Nature,” 84.

41 C. S. Lewis, “The Laws of Nature,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 77 (Lewis’s emphasis).

42 Schaaffs, Theology, Physics and Miracles, 45.

43 Schaaffs, 56. In answer to the question concerning whether science’s current understanding changes, Schaaffs responds, “The indeterminacy relation may have to be refined, but the principle behind it will remain” (67, emphasis added).

44 History assists in our ability to understand how agents act within the perceived natural laws.

45 Some of the various examples of even skeptical scholars (some quite radically so) who treat historiographical studies in an optimistic and/or constructive manner include the following: David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, section 5, pt. 1; Wilhelm Dilthey, “The Understanding of Other Persons and Their Life-Expressions,” in volume 7 of Dilthey, Gesammelte Schriften, republished in Patrick Gardiner, Theories of History: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources, The Free Press Textbooks in Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 224–25; Benedetto Croce, “History and Chronicle,” in History—Its Theory and Practice, republished in Gardiner, Theories of History, 228–30; Bertrand Russell, “Dialectical Materialism,” in Freedom and Organization, re-published in Gardiner, Theories of History, 287–92; Russell, “Truth and Falsehood,” in The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 284; A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic (New York: Dover, 1946), 16, 18–19, 40, 101; R. G. Collingwood, Idea of History, 97, 134–51, 246–82, 292–94 (see chap. 1, n. 56); Collingwood, “Limits of Historical Knowledge” (see chap. 1, n. 68); Beard, “Written History,” 141–51 (see chap. 1, n. 66); Beard, Economic Interpretation (see chap. 1, n. 68); Carl L. Becker, “What Are Historical Facts?,” 121–37 (see chap. 1, n. 68); Becker, Heavenly City, 17–21, 28–39, 83–84 (see chap. 1, n. 68), for some examples. It should be noted that the theme of this entire book by Becker involves a historical argument, chiefly comparing ideas in the eighteenth and thirteenth centuries (31). Other skeptical sources include Karl Mannheim, “The Sociology of Knowledge,” in Ideology and Utopia, republished in Gardiner, Theories of History, 247–49; Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge, 149–65, 195 (see chap. 1, n. 68); Mackie, Miracle of Theism, esp. 23–28; Flew, God and Philosophy, 146, 150–58; Flew in Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 5–8; Flew, There Is a God, 185–87, 213.

46 Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 26.

47 A very similar definition can be found in Habermas, Philosophy of History, 10 (see chap. 4, n. 28).

48 Lewis, Miracles, 60.

49 Hume, “Of Miracles,” part 1; Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 24; cf. Flew in Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 3; Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 32; Swinburne, “Violation of a Law of Nature,” 84, cf. 133; Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 23, 27.

50 Again, we are not simply assuming or postulating the reality of such miraculous scenarios here. These cases would have to be established rather than just be asserted. Thus, we are speaking hypothetically in this present, definitional context.

51 Stephen T. Davis, “Is It Possible to Know That Jesus Was Raised from the Dead?,” Faith and Philosophy 1 (1984): 151.

52 Davis, “Is it Possible to Know,” 152.

53 Lewis, Miracles, 63–64. Intriguingly, Lewis attests that he did not notice until years later that the Christian view of the matter is “more vivid and more concrete” (64).

54 Lewis, 59.

55 Lewis, 46, 61 for examples.

56 Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 25.

57 Swinburne, “Violation of a Law of Nature,” 80–81; very similar wording is found in Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 27–28.

58 Intriguingly, we have seen that this notion of being superseded by a superior power is even acknowledged by atheistic philosophers should such an event obtain. See Flew, God and Philosophy, 153, 156; Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 24.

59 Antony Flew, ed., A Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin’s, 1984), 234.

60 Lewis, Miracles, 93.

61 For a technical and detailed study of the relevant material here, see Walter Grundmann, “δύναμις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:284–317. For a popular source, see W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words with Their Precise Meanings for English Readers, 4 vols. (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1966), 3:75–76.

62 Walter Grundmann, “δύναμις,” 2:284, 286–90; cf. 297, 307.

63 Grundmann, 2:290–94.

64 Grundmann, 2:299–302, 304 in particular.

65 A technical and comprehensive examination is available from Karl Rengstorf, “σημεῖον,” in Kittel and Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7:200–61; Vine also provides a popular treatment in An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 3:75–76.

66 As in Kittel and Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “σημεῖον,” esp. 7:213–16.

67 Kittel and Friedrich, 7:231, 233–36.

68 Mackie, Miracle of Theism, 22; cf. 19–20. Richard Taylor helpfully identifies two types of explanation that would be relevant here. See Taylor, “Two Kinds of Explanation,” in Swinburne, Miracles, 103. See also Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 53–57.

69 Flew, God and Philosophy, 156; Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 49–50 and elsewhere.

70 Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1:115, 117.

8

Jesus the Healer

This chapter will not address whether Jesus’s amazing deeds recorded in the first and second centuries were actually miracles in the sense of having been actions performed by God. That question is an extension of this one and will await a later discussion in this study, especially since it involves various philosophical and theological issues left largely unanswered in reflections on whether or not Jesus healed sick individuals, cast out demons, or raised the dead. So when the word miracle is utilized here, it is more in the sense of amazing feats and real healings performed by Jesus.

Rather, taken in a more straightforward manner, the chief issue to be investigated here is a historical one: whether or not events such as the mighty deeds depicted in the early Gospels attributed to Jesus, or other deeds similar to them, actually occurred. Thus it should be noted carefully that when the word miracle is used in this chapter, it reflects the terms and ideas used in the various ancient texts without making judgments in this context as to whether God actually performed these events. In this sense, it is basically the idea of “miracle claims” that is discussed here.

Jesus’s Miracle Claims and Contemporary Scholarship

An absolutely amazing feature in recent critical New Testament thought is the significant alteration that has developed regarding the scholarly attitude concerning this topic.1 Due to the evidential application of historical considerations to the Gospels (which will be examined later in this chapter), critical scholars virtually across the scholarly spectrum acknowledge that Jesus was a healer and an exorcist. As already explained at the outset of this chapter, this is not necessarily to answer the questions of what really or exactly happened on those occasions or what was the ultimate cause of the events in the sense of being from God’s hand and so on, but it is granted by scholars today that events at least very similar to those depicted in the Gospels actually did occur. This is the case even for more skeptical researchers.

Earlier in the previous century, even the New Testament skeptical scholar Rudolf Bultmann acknowledged that there could be no doubt that Jesus healed sick individuals and expelled demons.2 Further, some of these miracle accounts “originated in the earliest church.”3 Much more recently, Jarl Fossum notes: “That Jesus was a miracle worker is central to the Christology of the New Testament Gospels and Acts.”4 Perhaps surprisingly, prominent Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg attested quite strongly, “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” Further, Jesus’s healing cases clearly cannot all be accounted for simply as “faith healings” alone, for we just do not know how far Jesus’s powers actually extended.5 Prominent historical Jesus researcher John Meier states, “In sum, the statement that Jesus acted as and was viewed as an exorcist and healer during his public ministry has as much historical corroboration as almost any other statement we can make about the Jesus of history.”6

Such often positive statements and conclusions could be multiplied many times over from the relevant critical literature. Though many of these New Testament and other scholars include atheists, agnostics, Jewish authorities, and many skeptics among their numbers, they still agree often that the available data indicate clearly that Jesus was in some sense a healer and exorcist.7

Few scholars have provided more meticulous analyses on this topic than either John Meier or Graham Twelftree. Meier concluded his over 400-page in-depth study by judging that more than 40 percent of the miracle claims presented in the Gospel texts actually correspond to specific historical occurrences from the life of Jesus. As indicated above, Meier quite amazingly concluded from Jesus’s actions during his public ministry that not only was he viewed widely as a healer and exorcist, but that there is as much historical verification for these aspects of his life as there is for almost anything else that may be said about the historical Jesus. In fact, these aspects are much better evidenced than many other assertions made about Jesus, ones that are often considered to be settled issues.8 The meticulous nature of Meier’s studies on the available data pertaining to the historical Jesus has made him as influential as almost any scholar in this field, indicating the worth of his contribution to this topic.

In an even lengthier critical study, Twelftree concluded that a much higher percentage (approximately 76 percent) of the Gospel miracle accounts accurately portray historical events in Jesus’s life. Twelftree’s study indicated findings quite similar to Meier’s: “There is hardly any aspect of the life of the historical Jesus which is so well and widely attested as that he conducted unparalleled wonders.” Astonishingly, these miraculous deeds “were the most important aspect of Jesus’ whole pre-Easter ministry.”9

Crucially as well, neither Meier nor Twelftree discount the remaining Gospel miracle accounts where there is insufficient historical evidence to actually establish these occurrences as individual events. Hence, the accounts may very well describe healings and exorcisms that actually happened. Both scholars agree that a lack of evidence fails to disqualify an event; this just indicates that the other examples cannot be proven by the canons of probability.

That the sum of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms may indeed mark the centermost of Jesus’s pre-Passion actions, as mentioned by Twelftree, is another means of marking their importance. That Jesus pointed to his miracles as indications that he was God’s spokesperson is still another signal as to the import of these occurrences.10

Craig Keener is another New Testament scholar who investigates the topic of miracles in minute detail. His treatment of Jesus’s miracles is not as comprehensive per se, since his emphasis is quite clearly placed on contemporary miracle claims. Rather than examining the historical intricacies of the Gospel pericopes, as do Meier and Twelftree, Keener chiefly and helpfully provides an overview of the current scholarly discussion.

Keener argues that all ancient sources likewise agreed that Jesus performed miracles, including ancient non-Christian texts from both the Jewish rabbis as well as from the early philosophical critic Celsus. Quite surprisingly, none of these ancient texts attempted either to deny or refute the Christian claims. Additionally, Keener enumerates approximately a dozen different ancient reports that record Jesus’s miracles, including the five most commonly identified Gospel sources (Q, Mark, M, L, and John).11 He also finds that there is very little development over the time between the composition of the Gospels, concluding, “The essential substance of the miracles themselves remains unchanged.”12

Keener likewise briefly addresses the state of recent scholarly views on the subject of Jesus’s miracles, especially from within the ranks of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. Several exceptionally positive affirmations are reproduced from these critical scholars, including even the radical critic Morton Smith, whom Keener terms the “most skeptical toward the Gospel tradition.” Yet, while Smith dismisses Jesus’s miracles, he still “argues that miracle working is the most authentic part of the Jesus tradition.” Keener ends this chapter by posing two methodological sorts of questions for later discussions: the potential contrast of Christian with non-Christian miracle claims and the huge issue of contemporary a priori assumptions against miraculous events.13

Borg notes three indications why the historicity of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms is virtually undisputed even by the vast majority of critical scholars. Initially, these reports are affirmed in the “earliest sources” that we possess. Further, these occurrences were thought to be “relatively common in the world around Jesus” in that general time.14 Lastly, Jesus’s opponents did not contest the proclamations that he did healings and exorcisms, but “they claimed that his powers came from the lord of the evil spirits,” thereby admitting the existence of the events themselves by their very criticism. In this way, Jesus’s disciples, the crowds of people who heard and saw Jesus, and even his adversaries all agreed to what happened and that at least these healings and exorcisms were due to Jesus’s skills and power.15

More interestingly for some, it might even be stated according to Borg that the major determination in Jesus’s time was not the miracles themselves, which were recognized as actual events. Rather, the chief concern was the teachings brought by the wonder worker. What did the individual teach as following from their miracles? In the view of the Gospel authors as well as for Jesus, his mighty acts were done by the power and authority of God.16

So the scholarly attitude has changed rather significantly during the past few decades regarding whether or not Jesus actually performed events such as those recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. It is almost unanimous, even among quite skeptical scholars, that Jesus was in some sense a healer and an exorcist, however these events are ultimately explained or interpreted. The Synoptic authors also maintain that these events were linked to the hand of God and were performed by God’s power. As such, Jesus’s miracles were caught up as an integral part of the overall divine plan. This is especially the case when understood within the ancient Jewish context, as we shall see.

More specifically in terms of the various messages themselves, we see miraculous occurrences utilized in the texts to vindicate Jesus’s forgiveness of sins and to argue repeatedly that he was the Messiah, that he had both claimed and been given other divine titles, that he was God’s chosen messenger especially regarding the coming of God’s kingdom, and that his teachings were true. In him, God was confronting people with a choice. In short, what they did with Jesus determined whether or not they could enter God’s kingdom. Intriguingly, even Jesus’s exorcisms were employed as pointers to messages such as his triumph over Satan (Mark 3:22–27) as well as the connection to the presence of God’s kingdom (Luke 11:20). All of this and more was said to follow from the occurrence of his miracles and exorcisms.

Even a majority of recent critical scholars hold that Jesus thought his miracles confirmed both his person as well as his message.17 In fact, Twelftree remarks, the evidence indicates that “because of his miracles, Jesus appears to have been conscious that he was God’s key figure.”18 I. H. Marshall affirms that Jesus’s resurrection served as “the decisive stimulus” in causing the early Christians to recognize that Jesus was deity.19 Such critical recognition is not surprising, since the Gospel comments indicating that Jesus thought in terms of the miraculous confirmation of his message are reflected by very strong multiple attestations, being found in at least four sources (Mark, Q, M, and John).

In other words, against this general backdrop and according to the data, Jesus predicted his resurrection and performed healings and exorcisms apparently in addition to nature miracles.20 Further, he taught that all of these items were accrediting signs that verified his personal claims and teachings. Moreover, perhaps even the majority of critical scholars have argued repeatedly that Jesus was also raised from the dead, just as he had proclaimed earlier in his ministry. What would this overall scenario look like from the Jewish perspective? As Borg explains, Jesus’s opponents did not deny his miracles. Rather, they admitted them while attributing them to evil powers. But this move actually only succeeded in pointing both to Jesus’s holiness as well as to his healing authority.21

The Historical Data behind the Critical Observations

This is one of the few chapters across this entire study where we began by leading with the second step of the minimal facts method—namely, the critical scholarly views on this subject—rather than with the actual evidence, in spite of the concrete data constituting by far the most crucial element in every one of our topics. This reversal is due to the startling nature of what almost all critical scholars admit freely. Even though many of these critical scholars do not recognize the supernatural element in Jesus’s actions, they usually do acknowledge that real healings genuinely took place. Therefore, cases like those described in the Gospels, and perhaps even basically the same ones depicted there, are recognized and accepted. These research judgments still tend to attract surprise and attention, hence setting up a discussion of the ensuing data that led to these scholarly positions in the first place.

We turn now to the evidential considerations to sample some of the major types and special instances of historical evidence on behalf of these critical views pertaining to Jesus’s miracle claims. The considerations thus far have chiefly emphasized Jesus’s reported physical healings and exorcisms, which are by far the most widely recognized in critical terms. While Jesus’s nature miracles are often rejected by some of these same scholars, others decide in their favor. We will list a sizable number of considerations that favor all three categories of Jesus’s claimed miraculous events, beginning with several of the critical historical criteria that were introduced, defined, and have been applied earlier and throughout this volume.22 These tests are quite useful and are often applied as checkpoints that may be applied to the past. Then we will move on to several additional areas of historical attestation.

Historical Criteria

Arguably the strongest and most crucial of the criteria, the Synoptic Gospel miracle and exorcism accounts of Jesus, are multiply attested in every one of the major in-dependent sources that lie behind each of these Gospels—notably Mark, the sayings source Q, M (Matthew’s special material), and L (Luke’s special material). This is recognized across a scholarly consensus from liberals such as the Jesus Seminar to conservatives.23 Further, the few miracle accounts recorded in John’s Gospel along with the lesser possibility of some of the miracle stories in Mark’s Gospel are also thought by many critical scholars to have utilized a Signs or Miracles Source.24

Moreover, even Jesus’s nature miracles are likewise mentioned in each of these canonical Gospel sources, such as the four major Synoptic texts (Mark, Q, M, and L), including a passage in the pre-Gospel source Q, where Jesus describes several of his healing miracles to be passed on to John the Baptist, who apparently was doubting. At the end of this list Jesus includes that “the dead are raised.”25 The other three major sources (Mark, M, and L) also include multiple examples of Jesus’s nature wonders, as does John’s Gospel.

As to the comment above that this may be the strongest of the criteria in favor of Jesus’s miracles, we might recall Ehrman’s comment:

If a saying or deed of Jesus is found in only one source, then it is possible that the source simply made it up. But if a word or action is found in several sources and they did not collaborate with one another, then none of them made it up; the tradition must predate them. If it is found independently in a number of sources, the probability of its being reliable is increased, assuming, of course, that it is contextually credible.26

Pertinent to Ehrman’s assertion here are the independent canonical texts listed above that all attest to Jesus being a miracle worker or an exorcist. These include at least Mark, Q, M, L, John, and Paul, plus the many pre-Pauline creedal traditions found especially in the Epistles and the sermon summaries in Acts. There is also the possibility that Josephus’s non-Christian work, the Antiquities of the Jews, mentions Jesus’s miracles, but this reference is debated by scholars, and its status is unclear. It is noteworthy that virtually this same list of sources would also apply to Jesus’s nature miracles as well.27 Given Ehrman’s chief point above, all of this indicates that the oral traditions behind the data actually preceded them and are hence earlier still.

Altogether very few researchers, including other skeptical scholars, have provided the careful demarcation of individual reports associated with the life of the historical Jesus as that which is provided by Crossan. Granted, some of the dates of Crossan’s sources are contested rather strongly by probably the majority of scholars,28 and the source-attestation counts for a number of these events could be tallied differently. However, having made these comments, Crossan still includes many reported miracles of Jesus in his lists, tallying both according to his chronology as well as his counts of multiple, independently attested sources. The total source count of the individual citations alone regarding Jesus’s life, even gathered together tightly, still tallies almost twenty-five pages of text!29

Regarding chronology, Crossan includes within the earliest “First Stratum” of sources (dated AD 30–60) a number of texts, such as Paul’s authentic epistles, what Crossan terms the “Cross Gospel,” the Gospel of the Hebrews, and a “Miracles Collection” that later became part of the Gospels of Mark and John. These sources contain major events and miracle reports, such as Jesus’s death by crucifixion, and his resurrection and appearances (as in 1 Cor 15:3–7 and many other places). In the “Second Stratum” (AD 60–80) Crossan includes the Gospel of Mark, Colossians, and a “Signs Gospel” that later also became part of John’s Gospel. The “Third Stratum” (AD 80–120) contains the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, John and their miracle and exorcism accounts, plus 1 John, 1 Peter, Clement, Ignatius’s seven epistles, Polycarp, Barnabas, the Didache, and the miraculous events mentioned in each of these.

Regarding the best attested of the miracle reports, Crossan’s earliest stratum contains those accounts accompanied by multiple independent attestations. These occurrences include Jesus’s crucifixion, resurrection, and postresurrection appearances, as well as the teaching of Jesus’s virginal conception. The earliest stratum accounts supported by triple independent attestations include the postresurrection appearance to James along with some of the important items Jesus mentioned about himself. First-stratum accounts involving double independent attestations include Jesus’s burial plus his healings of a leper, a boy cured at a distance, and a blind man. Even the nature reports of Jesus walking on water and Lazarus being raised are part of this doubly attested group.30

This incredible collection of independent texts, oral traditions, and early dates, even by critical scholars, represents a remarkably amazing array of ancient sources that originate from various locations and perspectives that together attest to miracle reports and other key events and teachings attributed to Jesus. As already mentioned, not all of the sources are of the same quality or degree of scholarly recognition and acceptance, nor are they recognized equally. Nonetheless, there remain a sufficient plethora of excellent examples complete with early dates and enough multiple attestations of sources to please almost all critical scholars that Jesus was a miracle worker and exorcist. This array helps explain why critical scholars across a wide consensus acknowledge the likelihood of at least some of these events having occurred more or less as described in the canonical Gospels and elsewhere.

Jesus’s Opponents and Enemy Attestation

It may be recalled that one of Borg’s three reasons for designating Jesus as a healer and exorcist is that while his opponents and critics in the Gospels were in position on many occasions to observe these occurrences, they were left with little or no decent explanations, resorting to calling them blasphemous or attributing them to Satan or Beelzebub (Mark 2:1–12; 3:22; Luke 13:10–17).31 This latter attitude is also attested in Q.32 Jesus’s critics were also present when he performed nature miracles (Matt 28:11–15; Mark 5:39–42; John 11:47–48).

Quite intriguingly, Borg goes well beyond many critical scholars in openly entertaining questions pertaining to the possibility of whether Jesus may actually have performed real exorcisms of evil spirits as well as his doing the nature miracles like those described in the Gospels, noting some intriguing modern considerations and studies as well. Borg raises several worthwhile thoughts here: not all sickness in the Gospels was thought to come from evil spirits, others besides Jesus and his followers were said to have performed similar things too, and not all of Jesus’s healings were “faith healings.” Borg answers that we just cannot be sure that these things cannot occur—we simply do not know.33 As a noteworthy side point, Jesus’s observers did not appear to differentiate between the different types of miracles as modern scholars do, nor did they attempt to explain away the different types.34

Before moving forward, a significant emphasis has emerged here. Our initial two defenses of Jesus’s miracles consisted of the unanimous major source attestation behind the Synoptic Gospels plus the confirmation provided by Jesus’s opponents. According to Borg, applying these data helps make the case for Jesus’s healings and exorcisms practically indisputable among critical scholars. But the additional theme that emerges here is that these same sources also serve to evidence Jesus’s nature miracles as well, which are not as often held by these same scholars. But if this material from each of the Gospel sources counts so significantly on behalf of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, then why would they not also establish the nature miracles as well? It is difficult to accept the first two miracle categories on these data while excluding the third type. This consideration may have been precisely the reason that caused Borg to consider with more openness the subjects of both actual exorcisms as well as nature miracles. Critical protests to the contrary regarding the nature miracles too easily take on at least the appearance of an a priori slant and begin to look like special pleading.35

Miracles Involving Multiple Criteria

Graham Twelftree and John Meier are two specialists on the subject of Jesus’s miracles who have documented many cases where Jesus’s individual healings, exorcisms, and even his nature miracles are supported by more than one historical criterion. Several examples can be enumerated.

The healing of blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46–52 (and parallels) provides several clear indications of historicity. The report of this event was almost surely early, pre-dating the Gospel of Mark, as well as most likely being derived at least in part from eyewitness testimony. It also incorporated an embarrassing element, indicates Aramaic origins, and even exhibited at least a partial hint of the criterion of dissimilarity, which is usually thought to be the strictest of these rules. For example, Bartimaeus is one of only two persons who requested a miracle from Jesus in Mark whose proper name is provided, whereas the use of specific names for non-disciples is rare in this Gospel. Further, the name Bartimaeus is Aramaic, and Bartimaeus addresses Jesus as “Rabbouni” in 10:51, which is also a very uncommon Aramaic title for Jesus. Each of these aspects most likely indicates an ancient report that was probably derived from one of Mark’s traditional sources.

Moreover, Bartimaeus addresses Jesus as the “Son of David” (10:47), which is not a pre-Christian Jewish title for the Messiah according to Twelftree, and it is also the only time the title is used in Mark. This fulfills at least partially the dissimilar point just mentioned, and there are other indications that this was a pre-Markan reminiscence. Lastly, the crowd embarrassingly rebukes the blind man in 10:48, which appears to be a very surprising, upsetting, and even nasty reprimand. As Twelftree states, these are all key elements indicating that this account “probably goes back to the memories of Jesus’ audience.”36

Meier likewise remarks concerning the “unusual convergence of an impressive number of elements pointing to historicity” in the case of Bartimaeus. Writing a few years before Twelftree’s work, Meier mentions many of the same points. Meier also adds items such as the specific knowledge of Palestinian geography, Jewish customs, the locations of this occasion, as well as the time of year found in the source.37 Meier concludes with the judgment that the healing of blind Bartimaeus “is one of the strongest candidates for the report of a specific miracle going back to the historical Jesus.”38

In another healing case, of the deaf person who was healed in Mark 7:31–37 (and Matt 15:29–31), there is evidence of early and eyewitness testimony as well as an embarrassing element and another example of an Aramaic term being used. According to Twelftree, these details again indicate the likelihood that “we are reading a story that has good claim to go back to the reports of those who were in Jesus’ audience.”39

Confirming these comments, there are “a remarkable number of non-Markan words in such a short miracle story,” marking this account as one of the lesser known ones in the early church. Moreover, that Jesus utilized his fingers and spittle in the healing process not only differentiates this from Jesus’s normal healing methods but is rather embarrassing as well, hence making it highly unlikely that it is an invented story. Lastly, the term Ephphatha (“Be opened!”) is Aramaic, which is yet another indication of what is likely an original term used by Jesus, hence predating the Gospel of Mark by going back to the very earliest data. Twelftree concludes the matter here: “These considerations taken together augur well for this story’s faithfully reflecting an actual event in the life of the earthly Jesus.”40

Meier notes similar elements to Twelftree, including the non-Markan terms, the embarrassment of Jesus using his saliva, along with the Aramaic command “Ephphatha” in this text. Meier notes that the use of saliva plus Jesus placing his fingers into the man’s ears add discontinuity to the mix too, a strong criterion, meaning that the text was derived neither from previous Jewish sources nor from later Christian sources. Hence, it appears to be authentic. In fact, he concludes that it is the two elements of embarrassment and discontinuity that push this healing example into the historical category.41

Mark 9:14–29 (and parallels) narrates an exorcism by Jesus that exhibits elements of coherence, embarrassment, as well as an early report. The story follows well when compared with typical exorcism cases, pointing to its consistency. Jesus’s rebuke in Mark 9:19 regarding this being a “faithless generation” seems to show Jesus in at least a somewhat negative, embarrassing light, making it highly unlikely that the situation was invented. That Matthew and Luke both seem to tone down the incident somewhat is an indication that Mark most likely preserved the very earliest rendition of the story. Lastly, that later members of the church did not capitalize on Jesus’s comment that prayer was also necessary is an indication that this story was probably not invented later. Twelftree summarizes the incident this way: “We can be confident the story as a whole faithfully reflects an incident in the life of Jesus.”42

Meier comments similarly, adding that there are also a number of Semitisms in this passage, which would most likely indicate it existed originally in Aramaic and therefore was quite early. Accordingly, with all items being considered, Meier is inclined to see this exorcism as a real tradition predating Mark’s account.43

Regarding Jesus’s nature miracles, the events usually placed in this category are the most widely disputed, especially by the most critical members of the scholarly academy. It is also the case that these seem to be viewed this way not because the evidence is horrible, but chiefly because of worldview considerations. Actually, some of the data here are quite exemplary. But the worldview questions cannot be entertained here, especially since they are treated in other places in this study, including in the historiographical chapters at the outset of this present volume.

Meier notes several reasons why the entire category of the so-called nature miracles (which he terms a “catchall category”) needs to be reworked, not the least of which is the miracles’ decided lack of homogeneity among other considerations.44 Still, most crucially, and based on several criteria each along with other arguments, both Twelftree and Meier think the historical evidence favors the key nature miracles of Jesus raising the dead, including the case of Lazarus. They judge all three of these events to rank somewhere between probable and fairly certain as far as referring back to actual events narrated in the Gospels. Twelftree is more positive in his assessment here, but neither scholar rejects any of these three stories of Jesus raising the dead.45

It also should be noted that both of these authors include much more in-depth discussions of these and other miraculous-type incidents in Jesus’s life beyond what has been discussed here. For example, Twelftree has treated over a half dozen additional healing and exorcism cases where more than one criterion or other considerations help to confirm each incident.46 For his part, Meier has four full chapters including the discussions above, plus far more material.47

To sum up the overall case of Jesus’s miracles performed during his ministry: of Twelftree’s count of twenty-nine total miracle cases treated, twenty-two of them are “judged with high confidence to reflect an event or events most likely in the life of the historical Jesus.” Intriguingly enough, this total includes at least five cases of nature miracles, including all three where Jesus is described as having raised dead individuals. Further, “we have found no good evidence that any of the miracle stories are legendary or have their origins outside the Christian tradition.” This leaves a total of only seven miracle accounts where “the nature of historical research is such that these stories cannot, based on available data, be said with the same degree of certainty to reflect . . . an event in the life of the historical Jesus.” But as mentioned elsewhere, this does not mean that these last seven miracle stories did not occur, but only that they could not be established on historical grounds.48

For Meier’s summary, multiple independent source attestation is the most crucial major test that establishes the historicity of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, though the other criteria and certain other considerations all help significantly. Hence, it is the wide convergence of a great many healings and exorcisms spread over a variety of independent sources that best establish the overall case.49 Meier notes that the healings constitute a stronger case than do the more limited number of exorcisms. Quite curiously once again, with the three instances where Jesus is recorded as having raised dead individuals, Meier judges that each one “enjoys remarkably strong multiple attestation in the sources: Mark, John, L, and Q.” This includes the well-known case of Lazarus, which “argues that even during his lifetime Jesus was thought of by his disciples to have raised the dead.” As mentioned earlier, this indicates to Meier that being a healer and exorcist “has as much historical corroboration as almost any other statement” regarding the historical Jesus. Critics who deny or ignore this feature of Jesus’s ministry have produced “a domesticated Jesus.”50

For Twelftree, the overall case for these three categories of events can lead to the conclusion that at least some of these occurrences were genuine miracles, in the sense that God would necessarily have had to intervene in order for them to occur.51 However, this is not the case for Meier, who argues that historical analyses cannot determine whether true miraculous events actually happened.52

Additional Marks of Historicity: Jesus’s Healings and Exorcisms

A fourth indication of historicity for some of Jesus’s extraordinary feats is that a number of prominent critical researchers have argued in favor of various additional historical indicators concerning the narratives pertaining to Jesus’s healings and exorcisms. Some of these signals are rather obscure, precisely something a specialist would recognize that others might not. While it is true these two categories of episodes are seldom questioned, further details may also be helpful beyond those that have already been given.

A number of scholars are impressed with the overall coherence of the entire Gospel landscape, namely, that Jesus’s miracles fit well with the general teaching concerning his person and message. Fuller recognizes this balance of Jesus’s authoritative words and mighty actions: “God is directly present in the words of Jesus” as he imparts his themes of salvation and judgment. Within this entire picture, Jesus’s healings and exorcisms are signposts that indicate the presence of God’s kingdom.53 Bornkamm likewise argues for the congruence that existed between Jesus’s public preaching in concert with his activities. More specifically, Jesus’s miracles were signs that drew people to him, while the authority that he manifested in his teaching did the same. In short, Jesus’s deeds and words fit together perfectly to account for his enormous influence.54

Taking a different path to a similar conclusion, Twelftree notes several historical indications of the authenticity of Jesus’s exorcisms. In contrast to other ancient exorcists of the time, Jesus did not employ material devices, such as placing a root up to the person’s nose. Nor did Jesus command the demon to prove that it had exited the individual’s body by performing some act. Moreover, Jesus did not take the route of other exorcists in utilizing the common formula, “I bind you.” Finally, he did not pray to God to remove the spirit or otherwise invoke other authorities beyond his own power and authority. While recognizing that Jesus’s methods were not totally without parallel, Twelftree points out that he did appeal uniquely to his own authority when he cast out the demons.55

In agreement with Fuller, Bornkamm, and a number of other prominent scholars, Twelftree understands Jesus’s power as an indication of God’s kingdom being enacted in the world. Twelftree sums up these overall corresponding features in the historical Jesus’s life with this powerful comment: “This understanding was unique. Jesus was the first to believe that in the ordinary events of exorcism Satan was being destroyed and the kingdom of God was arriving.”56

Lastly, Jesus Seminar Fellow Bruce Chilton points out elements in Mark’s exorcism story in 1:21–28 which indicate this account was not contrived for the sake of this Gospel. These textual “oddities” indicate its status as a pre-Markan account. For instance, the “most striking oddity” is the demon’s attempt to gain control over Jesus by addressing him by his proper name, thereby placing him on the defensive (1:24). Further, the demon’s expression of violence as it left the possessed man, trying to injure him in the process, is not the means by which Mark usually describes “the magisterial authority of Jesus’ exorcism” and thereby also serves as another indication of the account’s authenticity.57

These supplementary historical indications (among still others) augment the discussion so far by pointing out additional indicators regarding the authenticity of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms. These include more general observations (like those of Fuller and Bornkamm) as well as more specific details (such as Twelftree and Chilton explain).

Additional Marks of Historicity: Jesus’s Nature Miracles

A fifth indication of the historicity of the Gospel miracle accounts is that, as with Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, several critical scholars have also isolated numerous historical elements in some of Jesus’s nature-miracle accounts. This is remarkable in the sense that these stories in particular are often treated as the more extraordinary Gospel claims, perhaps in the sense that the personal faith of the individuals involved generally plays a much less significant role in the accounts. Thus, positive ideation and the power of suggestion would not bring about some of the described occurrences. Moreover, at least some of these occasions appear to evince greater power.

In the examples where Jesus raised the dead, Murray Harris finds additional historical indicators in the account of Jesus raising the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11–17), a small town in Galilee. On this occasion, Jesus approaches the town gate and discovers a mother walking along with a crowd of people, leading the funeral bier of her only son. Jesus takes pity on the woman, who was also widowed in addition to having lost her only son. Notably, the custom in Galilee was for a woman to precede the funeral bier that contained the body. But conversely, this was not the custom in Judea, located just south of this town. Other smaller hints are the specific name of this town being provided when this location is never named anywhere else in the Bible. This raises the question that if part or all of this story were contrived, why would such an obscure location be named instead of a better-known one? Also, Luke’s account is exceptionally restrained, with no attending comments about the nature of the afterlife and so on that are present in the apparent parable of the poor man who dies in Luke 16:22–31.58

In the raising of Jairus’s daughter,59 Harris notes the presence of additional, unneeded details that enhance the story, such as the pressing throng, Jesus overhearing the communication from Jairus’s servants, Jesus twice telling the mourners to leave the room, as well as his order to give the girl food. In particular, Jesus’s report that the girl was asleep (which seems to lessen the miraculous nature of the event) plus the scorn of those present that was directed at Jesus, are two different sorts of embarrassment that appear to detract from Jesus’s authority and image. Harris cautiously urges the authenticity of this case because of the presence of these elements plus the absence of the wilder features often found in the miracle accounts in the apocryphal Gospels.60

Regarding the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1–44), Harris suggests that the historicity of the account is favored by the wealth of circumstantial details, like the geography, the personal names involved, and the family background and details. Moreover, this story is brief and simple, without the obvious reports from Lazarus concerning either what he experienced during his four days of death or the curious questions and comments concerning such topics from the witnesses.61

Stephen Davis lists three factors that argue for the rationality of believing another nature miracle, namely, Jesus’s changing water to wine (John 2:1–11). Davis thinks it embarrassingly odd that the early church would create or otherwise employ an account that could easily have encouraged those who criticized Jesus for being a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:33–34). Additionally, the seemingly harsh way that Jesus addresses his mother in John 2:4 has often been questioned. Lastly, Jesus appears to play a rather unobtrusive part throughout that may be thought to be incongruent to John’s high Christology.62

Paul Barnett addresses the feeding of the 5,000, comparing carefully Mark’s account (Mark 6:30–46 and parallels) with that in the Fourth Gospel (John 6:1–15). After listing both similarities and differences, Barnett agrees with a number of contemporary scholars that the two versions derive from separate renditions, “with each resting in all probability on independent eyewitness recollection.”63

Craig Blomberg begins his essay with the almost unanimously recognized and critically accepted kingdom teachings of Jesus, especially as manifested in his parables. He applies here the widely attested criterion of coherence, seeking material “which is fully consistent with material authenticated by the other recognized criteria.” The bulk of his chapter indicates how the nature miracles cohere with Jesus’s kingdom teachings as they are symbolized in the parabolic inbreaking of God’s kingdom. As Blomberg concludes: “In short, the nature miracles and the parables closely cohere with each other. . . . It therefore follows that the earliest forms of these miracle stories should be recognized as most probably historical (that is to say factual accounts of deeds from the life of Christ).”64

The authors in this section thus join other researchers in arguing that, as with Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, there are also sufficient marks of historicity to indicate the credibility of Jesus’s nature miracles as well. In this matter, the scholars here agree with Twelftree and Meier, as already mentioned.

Historically Reliable Aspects of the Gospels

The sixth indication that a majority of the Gospel reports of Jesus’s miracles are most likely historically reliable is that these events are drawn from sources that are increasingly being shown to be dependable in some sense. This view of the Gospels has been emerging in recent years, drawn across numerous aspects over a large number of publications written by critical scholars. Contrary charges are sometimes heard that the Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses,65 or that the individual stories and other teachings in these writings were not based on eyewitness reports.66 These more skeptical stances are frequently aimed at the Gospel depictions of miracles. Doubting the Gospels as viable sources would especially work against even the possibility of the supernatural events in them. This is especially so regarding the nature miracles due to their more obvious manifestation of power that is due to more than faith alone, and which often point to God. So evidential pushback is often necessary.

Yet, there has been a large increase in recent publications that present a wide variety of new details and perspectives arguing the thesis of Gospel reliability both generally as well as more specifically, as in this discussion of exorcisms.67 While this overall topic cannot be argued here, it may be noted that the evidence in support of Gospel reliability in general and the miracle texts in particular supports a strong case for the historicity of the miracles.

More specifically, many significant areas that are quite relevant here could be highlighted in this discussion.68 For example, even the majority of critical scholars presently view the Gospel genre as that of ancient Greco-Roman bios, meaning that a historical framework underlies these texts.69 Further, much work has been published on the eyewitness, early creedal traditions, and similar testimony behind the Gospel authors and sources.70 The possibility of note-taking and other means of remembering Jesus’s message has received major attention of late.71 Few conclusions regarding the Gospels are more readily recognized by virtually all recent scholars than the presence of major sources behind each of the Gospels, with many of these generally thought to be quite early in origin.72 Ancient secular writings have also helped significantly in providing corroboration for many background aspects of Jesus’s life, as well as other Gospel and early church details.73

It should be noted as well that, like most contemporary perspectives on the New Testament, there are also divergent views from reputable scholars on these topics above, in whole or in part. While most of these perspectives appear to be at least fairly well supported, critics can and do offer alternative suggestions. Often, general support is voiced while caveats are still offered, even by the same scholar.74

The chief thought here is not to invoke the idea that the entire text of the Gospels is uniformly one way or another. Rather, these different strands of research indicate that particular portions are more or less likely shown to be verified according to historical standards and therefore can be accepted as indicating probable amounts of data. As several researchers, including Meier, Twelftree, and Crossan, among others have shown, a number of significant evidential categories above often coalesce and overlap fairly often, even in particular examples of Jesus’s miracles. These are quite significant pointers. Due to results such as these, Borg was cited earlier in his assertion that “despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.”75

Notably, some authors over the years have concluded that it is essential to establish whether the four canonical Gospels were either written by eyewitnesses or at least relied on eyewitness testimony for the most crucial reports in their works. That really has not been the direct emphasis here, but definitely not because the data are lacking in the present research. Such relevant issues are addressed in several chapters later in this same volume. For one example, Richard Bauckham’s sophisticated volume Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, cited above, is a very clear indication that these concerns are far from the case.

But it should be recognized that both the approach and the categories pursued above still allow eyewitnesses and other close, reliable observers to move in and out of both the pre-Gospel sources as well as through the Gospel material itself in ways that fill the role of excellent ancient observers and reporters. Thus, this has been a slightly different way to actually augment some similar approaches. For example, Ehrman allows repeatedly that many of the exceptionally early creedal traditions that Paul received and recorded in the earliest New Testament writings likely came from Jerusalem, were established and in existence even before his conversion (at just two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion), and most likely would have come from apostles like Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus!76 Ehrman asks, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”77 He summarizes that this body of information was sufficient to “give us a rock solid start.”78 The Acts sermon summaries also attest to some relevant data here as well.

Therefore, reliability efforts do not rest on the single path of the Gospel authors being established either as eyewitnesses themselves or as being informed directly by eyewitnesses. Again, that route could be pursued and such a conclusion could definitely further the case for Jesus’s miracles. For example, even though R. T. France states that he would argue for the traditional Gospel authors, he notes the additional consideration that this is actually not essential to determine whether or not the identity of the Gospel authors is known. He argues that these books should be judged the way most historians judge matters of historical accuracy—by virtue of their being the earliest narratives that report the best evidential traditions.79 Again, this subject is addressed in great detail later in this volume.

All told, this sixth consideration combines a well-grounded, multifaceted report that undergirds Jesus’s miracles and exorcisms. Many of the individual elements zero in precisely at some of these most crucial events.

The Resurrection of Jesus

The seventh reason that could favor Jesus’s miracles and exorcisms will be stated here just briefly. It has been argued that the case for these events can be established on their own grounds apart from other considerations. But there is an additional, brief insight to be mentioned here. This entire study is centered on one particular event: that of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. If the resurrection occurred, then the remainder of Jesus’s miracles becomes less problematic and more likely.

Throughout the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus is treated as the major miracle besides being a nature wonder. In fact, Crossan referred to the resurrection as “the supreme ‘nature’ miracle.”80 If this most majestic of nature miracles did in fact occur, then by itself this would create some impetus for a different all-around ethos and understanding of how Jesus’s miracle claims should be viewed and treated. There is a sense that while the issue may be debated by scholars, most would probably concede that if Jesus’s resurrection actually occurred, such a fact would indeed cast a different light over the earlier discussion of Jesus’s miracles too. As important and well documented as many of Jesus’s actions were, this would still change the dynamics of the entire discussion.

Contemporary Confirmation Claims

Whatever the contemporary verdict on Jesus’s mighty events, an eighth area that may be helpful here in evaluating the historicity of the Gospel accounts also appears to be quite germane to the topics in this chapter. Namely, what is to be made of the various and often incredible sorts of information that have emerged in recent years regarding contemporary medical and other claims that might be comparable to the Gospel phenomena, especially when there are various considerations in their favor? These might include controlled double-blind prayer experiments, documented healings, and even nature wonders. Could potential corroboration even be possible? Data have been supplied in some recent cases that at least tend to raise some eyebrows, especially when credentials have been claimed for a wide variety of verified cases. Some of the particulars have already been mentioned elsewhere in this chapter and will be discussed momentarily.

There is a definite diversity of views on Jesus’s miracle claims. Sometimes it is assumed that if modern medical science could have investigated the Gospel marvels, the outcome would strongly oppose and perhaps even eliminate what has been interpreted by some as Jesus’s healing miracles. After all, the ancients are usually thought to be backward in many ways.81 At the same time, it is also widely recognized today that there are levels of healing, including physical and emotional species among other possibilities, with various shades in between. Even so, it seems that charges are often made that miraculous events are simply not witnessed today in the same way that the biblical writers describe. Further, it is also commonly asserted that, since these occurrences are absent today, we are justified in being even more skeptical of the entire category.82

But what if such events do occur today? In such a scenario, could recent carefully researched studies actually change some perspectives, working backward to increase our openness to the New Testament reports? Further, it may be that such wonders are indeed documented but often go uncovered because they are not regularly mentioned or searched out. Some examples may provide some hints.

At least a couple of major double-blind medical experiments have examined ways in which prayer might affect physical healing. In one, the intriguing outcome indicated a statistically positive effect on the recuperation of those who received prayer in twenty-one of twenty-six monitored categories, with strong odds against this happening by chance. Yet none of these almost 400 coronary care patients knew whether they were actual recipients of prayer due to the double-blind nature of the experimental design. Therefore, the results cannot be explained by references to the patients’ faith healing alone. The experiment was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and the chief cardiologist’s conclusion was: “These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU [Coronary Care Unit].”83 Other medically monitored prayer experiments, with at least one other one also being a double study, have also been performed with very positive outcomes.84

In terms of modern healing case studies, a rigorous and sophisticated overview of medical testing of both these prayer examples plus additional research on prayer and healing studies has been published by Candy Gunther Brown, Testing Prayer: Science and Healing.85 With chapter titles such as “Are Healing Claims Documented?” and “Can Health Outcomes of Prayer Be Measured?” plus being published by Harvard University Press with endorsements from one present and one emeritus Harvard Medical School professor, it is no wonder that studies such as Brown’s are bound to attract careful attention!

Additionally, Keener’s large two-volume work, which includes several hundred contemporary claims of healings, was specifically done as an extension to his huge four-volume Acts commentary.86 It was precisely Keener’s hope that the recent miracle data would shed light on the historicity of the New Testament events, including the healing cases in Acts, as indicated in his subtitle.87 Keener’s intentions in these works were other than apologetic in nature, and even the majority of his cases were reported anecdotally. Nonetheless, many of the best attested examples of the contemporary miracle claim cases reported there are exceptionally impressive, particularly when they are attested by before-and-after X-rays, MRIs, and CT scans or accompanied by many specialized medical witnesses and comments.88 Moreover, Keener also provides lists of contemporary exorcism cases, including the studies cited by Borg in this chapter, along with additional examples beyond these regarding still other psychiatrists, psychologists, and other scholars who have reported their own wide array of confirmed and unexplained data.89

The sum of these contemporary studies involves many varieties of phenomena that present an astounding, potentially well-documented quantity of empirically evidenced examples of healings and exorcisms, many accompanied by some intriguingly verified details. Many, or perhaps even a majority, of these examples could be rejected for one reason or another while a large core could still remain.90 Most of the healing and exorcism reports are also occasioned by the presence of what might be termed “divine action patterns”91 that involve prayer, expressions of faith, anointing, and other features that are sometimes strikingly similar to the reports in the Gospels and Acts.92

As mentioned earlier, the skeptical scholar Marcus Borg went as far as to inform his audience regarding the provocative nature of certain contemporary “possession” cases, citing the testimony of psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, who discovered two possible cases of possession and exorcism that he and a team of medical professionals could not explain in terms of straightforward medical limitations. Borg also remained open to instances of real nature healings like the possibility of Jesus having raised Lazarus from the dead.93 Contemporary studies by physicians on specific medical healings have also been published.94

No doubt individuals will decide differently regarding all eight of these arguments on behalf of Jesus’s miracles. But however these evaluations are made, decisions should follow according to the evidence rather than on the overall position that the person held previously. Too many views of this nature appear to be made based on preconceived notions.95 Similar to Borg’s comments above, another Jesus Seminar member, Bruce Chilton, states that “perfectly respectable philosophical reflection” may move in one direction, but “to say that demons do not exist and stories that suppose they do are misleading, has the attractive ring of rational consistency about it, but it would seem to reduce history to a priori notions of what is possible.”96

Beyond arguing against a priori dismissals, we have documented several ways in this chapter as to how recent non-Christian and other skeptical New Testament scholars have still decided in favor of at least some of the healings and exorcism cases that are described in the Gospel reports, however they are interpreted, agreeing that they probably represent historical Gospel accounts. However, that many critical scholars have come to this position in recent decades suggests that the prevalence of good data could at least be what pushed them in this direction. That would seem to be a positive sign of openness, as with the anecdotal story told above regarding two convinced agnostics.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we examined many reasons why contemporary scholars, including many skeptical researchers, take seriously that Jesus at least claimed to be a miracle worker, and plenty of them actually affirm that Jesus healed many people in various ways. The arguments discussed here include (but are not limited to) these factors: multiple attestation, enemy attestation, and other combinational criteria (such as early and eyewitness material, Aramaic phrases, and possible cases of dissimilarity). Still additional marks of historicity include the data pointing to exorcisms and nature claims, the reliability of the Gospels, Jesus’s resurrection, as well as contemporary accounts of miracle claims.

In sum, a few themes, explicit and implicit, follow from the discussion in this chapter and may be stated quite briefly. First and most straightforwardly, the contemporary critical view at present, even from quite critical New Testament scholars as well as other researchers specializing in similar areas, is that Jesus performed the healings and exorcisms as reported in the Gospels. Those accounts (or at worst, quite similar actions), actually occurred in the life of the historical Jesus. Recent critical scholarship (even among non-Christian specialists), then, is almost completely agreed that Jesus was a miracle worker of some sort and an exorcist, at the very least in the slightly more minimal sense just mentioned above, and that he performed these actions described in the Synoptic Gospels. As Dunn asserts:

One of the most compelling features of the whole sweep of ancient opinion regarding Jesus is his reputation as an exorcist and healer. It is no exaggeration to claim that it is one of the most widely-attested and firmly established of the historical facts with which we have to deal.97

For Dunn, then, the healing elements of Jesus’s message were solidly anchored in the earliest messages. At the “core,” “the stories were being told as miracles from the first.”98

We have seen a few times now where Borg states that this assurance is “firmly attested” such that “on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable.”99 It should be crucially noticed that this overall critical conclusion in this chapter definitely does not rest simply on say-so opinions or views, even if they are scholarly in nature. As both Dunn and Borg note, this conclusion is clearly due to the state of the data—it is “firmly established” as Dunn states, as well as being that from the outset. For Borg, this “virtually indisputable” conclusion rests on the historical attestation itself, much of which has been reported in the chapter. This is a huge recognition regarding recent studies and it may even apply to Jesus’s mighty nature actions too, especially if his resurrection occurred. But this still remains to be argued.

Second, we did not argue specifically in this chapter that these healings, exorcisms, and possibly the nature events were to be identified as miraculous actions of God. That too remains for future discussions in this study. Yet, the presence of some sorts of what we termed “divine action patterns” were seen here as well. Both Jesus’s healings and exorcisms as well as contemporary events of a similar nature were frequently stated to have occurred in the presence of agreement with Jesus’s major message, then wed to faith. Later, these keys were applied with action. More about these connections later,100 but the connection to God is a path that is already visible in the events themselves, as already pointed out here. Contemporary miracle claims increase the relevance and evidential force of these conclusions.101

In conclusion, then, the case for Jesus being caught up in some sense with the supernatural realm at many points appears to follow from what has been said here. We may agree along with Stephen Neill that, for these along with other reasons, it indeed may be affirmed that no one like Jesus has ever lived, taught, or performed such things before or even since:

If we take the Gospels seriously (and at the same time as critically as you will), Jesus is not the least like anyone else who has ever lived. The things that he says about God are not the same as the sayings of any other religious teacher. The claims that he makes for himself are not the same as those that have been made by any other religious teacher. His criticisms of human life and society are far more devastating than any other man has ever made. The demands he makes on men are more searching than those put forward by any other religious teacher.102

Notes

1 As a personal example from my own graduate student experiences in the 1970s, if one held during that decade that the Gospels were correct in teaching that Jesus was indeed a miracle worker and an exorcist, those who understood the issues could probably surmise that that individual was most likely either an evangelical or a conservative Roman Catholic. Today the tide of research has indeed turned.

2 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, 146 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

3 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:61 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

4 Fossum, “Understanding Jesus’ Miracles,” Bible Review 10 (1994): 17.

5 Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61 (see chap. 2, n. 32) for the quotation; cf. also the greater context in 59–61, 65–71.

6 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

7 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, esp. 25, 566 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261, cf. 315–17 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context, 5–6, 97 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Remus, Jesus as Healer, 106–18 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Kee, What Can We Know, 3, 19, 112 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Grant, Jesus, 35–37, 42–43 (see chap. 1, n. 24); E. P. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13, 168 (see chap. 1, n. 44); David Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017), 93, 142–43, cf. 167.

8 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27). Meier’s historical conclusions are provided on 968–70.

9 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 345 (see chap. 1, n. 30). For Twelftree’s historical conclusions, see 328–30.

10 As in Mark 2:1–12; Matt 12:38–42; 16:1–4; John 10:37–39; 14:11. The early sermon summaries in Acts continued similar themes (see Acts 2:22–24; 17:1–4, 22–34).

11 See Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 1:22–25, 29–33; see also Keener’s more recent volume on this subject where he compares modern miracle claims with those of Jesus in Keener, Miracles Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), parts 4–5.

12 Keener, Miracles, 1:31–32.

13 Keener, 1:26, for the Smith quotation; for the other topics, see 24–34. In chapter 2, Keener addresses the first of these questions by intriguingly contrasting early Christian miracle claims with ancient non-Christian miracle claims.

14 For more than one reason, Borg’s second argument here is the most debatable of these three assertions and introduces and encompasses a very wide variety of facets that must be approached both separately as well as differently. Borg is correct that the persons who lived in Jesus’s time and geographical vicinity generally thought miracles occurred with or without being performed by extraordinary persons. In this sense of the people’s beliefs on this subject, the original statement above is accurate. Where human parallel examples are concerned, these could involve Jewish prophets and holy men, ancient magicians, or the so-called Hellenistic divine men, like Apollonius of Tyana. But on the one hand, it does not at all follow that the specific details here were well-grounded historical occurrences. And this is the case as it pertains to both the extraordinary occurrences themselves as well to the individuals with whom they may have been connected. In fact, the reports concerning both the miracle claims and the individuals are almost always contained in sources that are very much later (sometimes even centuries afterwards!) than the claimed events themselves. Nor are there careful means of adjudication. Further, the comparison between the so-called parallel cases and Jesus’s examples is most frequently not at all comparative. These questions will be treated in much depth in a later volume of this study in a chapter devoted to both the reported events and those who reportedly performed them, where it will be pointed out that numerous very major problems always afflict these comparisons. For now, some initial considerations and distinctions here are contained in texts such as Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, 6, 14, 17–18, 127–31, 239 (see chap. 6, n. 187); Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, esp. 11–12, 34 (see chap. 4, n. 54); Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), chap. 2. But on the other hand, as pointed out by C. S. Lewis, it should not be assumed that such events, or even just the non-Christian cases, should always be denied necessarily. Thus, it need not be held that all such non-Christian reports were false, for other options are available. See Lewis, Miracles, 132–33 (see chap. 4, n. 82). According to the Old and New Testaments alike, God performed miraculous acts among those who were neither Israelites nor Christians. Moreover, supernatural occurrences strictly among pagans were also known in biblical times. Additionally, widespread contemporary healing data, many of which are accompanied by supporting evidence of various sorts, are reported around the world today. For examples of these reports, often in a Christian context, see Candy Gunther Brown, Testing Prayer: Science and Healing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

15 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

16 Borg, where these two points are made respectively, on 180–85 and 66–67.

17 This is quite incredibly the case even though some theologians and Scripture scholars who actually reject the literal resurrection event as well as the literal doctrines themselves think that the connection between them still holds even for today! A few examples across a wide critical spectrum and spread over more than a half century of those who think that at least Jesus believed this about his teachings would include Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:7; Marxsen, Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 125, 147, 169, 183 (see chap. 5, n. 39); Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, esp. 59–61, 65–71; Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 107; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977), 124–32; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 63-64 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Murray J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), chap. 5 for instance; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 61–67; Kee, What Can We Know, 112; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:967–70; Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30, 343–48; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, chap. 10, esp. 167. Cf. Vermes, Jesus in His Jewish Context, 97; cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 316–17.

18 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 346–47.

19 I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 128–29.

20 For recent discussions of nature miracles, see Graham H. Twelftree, ed., The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives, and Prospects (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017).

21 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

22 A discussion earlier in this volume addressed the objections that a number of recent commentators raise regarding some or most of these criteria. Yet, as pointed out there, it remains the case that the majority of critical commentators on New Testament matters consider them to be very valuable contributions to discussions regarding historical matters, especially in the Gospels. These criteria are likewise used by some secular historians. Hence, a pertinent matter here concerns issues such as where and how these criteria are actually employed.

23 Besides Mark, Q, M, and L, particular members of the Jesus Seminar also allow additional though lesser sources as having contributed to the Synoptics too, such as the Letters of Paul, the Didache, and possibly even the Gospel of Thomas. Each of these texts is also considered to have been an independent source that usually also mentioned Jesus’s miracles; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 15–16, 18, 128 (see chap. 2, n. 19). Also, Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 15–37 (see chap. 2, n. 35); Stein, Gospels and Tradition, esp. 158 (see chap. 2, n. 35); Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 171–79, particularly 173, 175; Licona, Differences in the Gospels, 113–15 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

24 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16–18. However, after speaking more positively in the first major Seminar volume where it appeared that there was thought to be a fair amount of evidence here for a Signs Source, most members of the Jesus Seminar ultimately rejected these sources (Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, esp. 388–89). However, John Dominic Crossan is much more positive on the Signs Source, placing sources in both the AD 30–60 as well as the 60–80 strata; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 429–30 (see chap. 6, n. 44)

25 This passage is numbered variously by at least three different Jesus Seminar scholars. Burton Mack numbers this saying as QS 16 in the reconstruction of Q, as in Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), 86. Marcus Borg’s team identifies this saying as Q24 in Borg, Mark Powelson, and Ray Riegert, eds., The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus (Berkeley: Ulysses, 1996), 58. James M. Robinson labels this text as Q 7:18–19, 22–23 in Robinson, ed., The Sayings of Gospel Q in English (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 9. It is worth mentioning that both Q and its reconstruction are also questioned by many scholars. As William Farmer asserts in his article “The Church’s Stake in the Question of ‘Q,’” Perkins Journal of Theology 39 (1986): 14: “The existence of Q, the fount of all these speculations, is not proven and today is more hotly contested in gospel scholarship than at any other time in our century. . . . In our view the present spectacle of theologians writing books about the theology of the ‘Q’ community is like children making castles in a sandbox.” Likewise, see Farmer’s essay “Order out of Chaos,” Perkins Journal of Theology 40 (1987); also Mark Goodacre, The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002).

26 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290; also, 78, 92, 97, 111, 130–31, 232, 251, 261.

27 Crossan’s statement must not be overlooked here that Jesus’s resurrection was “the supreme ‘nature’ miracle.” Crossan, Historical Jesus, 404.

28 These differences in dating apply most of all to perhaps a half dozen or so sources or source fragments that most scholars (even many fellow skeptical thinkers) often place in the second century or even later that are usually dated by Crossan to AD 50–60. A convenient list can be found in appendix 1 of Crossan, Historical Jesus, 427–29.

29 Crossan, 427–50, 461.

30 These tallies are found in Crossan, Historical Jesus, 427–32. In appendix 6 (461), Crossan provides a summarized inventory of Jesus’s miracle reports as found in his first three strata.

31 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61.

32 This charge by Jesus’s adversaries that he cast out demons by the power of the prince of demons is contained in QS 28, according to Mack’s numbering of these texts.

33 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, especially the various points being raised in the discussions on pages 61–71, including endnotes 8–10, 16. Two of the psychiatric sources that Borg mentions are M. Scott Peck, People of the Lie (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983); and Peck, Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption (New York: Free Press, 2005).

34 Interestingly, at times Crossan is reminiscent of some of the old liberal attempts to find a natural explanation for Jesus’s miracles; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 405, 407.

35 This theme of how worldview concerns seriously affect and change perspectives on the miracles and similar questions is treated in more detail in Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” in Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 126–29.

36 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 301–2.

37 Meier, Marginal Jew, with the lengthy treatment of this miracle account on pages 2:686–90 and the summary and quotations on 690.

38 Meier, 2:690.

39 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 322–23.

40 Twelftree, 323.

41 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2711–14, with this conclusion on 713–14.

42 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 290.

43 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:653–656, with this conclusion on 656.

44 Meier, 2:874–1038.

45 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 304–10, esp. 328; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:777–873, particularly 837 and 970.

46 These further instances are located in Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 284–90, 293–98, 316–17, 325–26 in an overall treatment found in chaps. 2–4.

47 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:646–1038.

48 For Twelftree’s summarized report, see esp. Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30, with the two quotations here on 328 and 330 respectively.

49 Crossan’s minute, highly detailed miracle source count presented above should be remembered at this juncture for its variety as well (see the section titled “Historical Criteria” earlier in this chapter, in particular, the text associated with nn. 29 and 30). Even though it was mentioned that a number of Crossan’s sources would be judged by many scholars to be too late to be useful in such a study, a number of those listed are still thought by many scholars besides Crossan to be valuable across a large cross section of recent research. One strong point here is that a number of these largely accepted texts extend beyond the canonical source spectrum.

50 See Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:967–70, quotations on 970.

51 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 330.

52 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:968; cf. William Lane Craig, “‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won’t Touch the Risen Lord,” Heythrop Journal 50 (2009): 91–97.

53 Fuller, New Testament Christology, 103–8.

54 Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene McLuskey and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 54–63, 64–69, 130–32, 169–70.

55 Such as the methods described by Josephus, Ant. 8:46–49. Cf. also Graham Twelftree’s description in his book Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 157–58, 163–64.

56 As Twelftree writes in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 361–400 (see chap. 7, n. 18). This quotation is the concluding sentence of the essay on 393.

57 B. D. Chilton, “Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21–28,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 253–71, esp. 260–61.

58 Murray J. Harris, “The Dead Are Raised,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 298–99.

59 This is the only time that all three Synoptic Gospels relate the same incident of Jesus raising a deceased individual (Matt 9:18–19, 23–26; Mark 5:21–24, 35–43; Luke 8:40–42, 49–56).

60 Harris, “Dead Are Raised,” esp. 310.

61 Harris, 313–14.

62 Stephen T. Davis, “The Miracle at Cana,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 429.

63 P. W. Barnett, “The Feeding of the Multitude,” in Wenham and Blomberg, 273–93.

64 Craig Blomberg, “The Miracles as Parables,” in Wenham and Blomberg, 327–59. Blomberg’s succinct conclusion is found on 347–48.

65 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16.

66 Fossum, “Understanding Jesus’ Miracles,” 23.

67 Just a few of the more general treatments of this subject include an initial comment from James H. Charlesworth, who cites scholars from approximately a dozen different countries and cultures who are “independently, recognizing that in its broad outline the Gospels’ account of Jesus is substantially reliable and true.” Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 1–41. The quotation is on 7. Cf. also Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, “The Historical Jesus and the Biblical Church: Why the Quest Matters,” in Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 17–42, esp. 23–24; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, Broadman and Holman Studies in Christian Apologetics (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016); Peter Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018). Older classics include F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960); A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? (see chap. 4, n. 43).

68 It should be noted that only a very limited amount of the relevant subtopics and available scholarly sources will be noted in this context.

69 See Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71); Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, 110, 130, 134, 234 (see chap. 4, n. 41); Licona, Differences in the Gospels; Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019).

70 See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017); Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Exceptionally crucial here is the subject to be treated in much detail later in this volume, namely, the data supplied by the extremely early creedal sources that predate the writings in which they appear, sometimes by one to three decades, that record the earliest Christian teachings on Jesus’s life and teachings, including supernatural elements such as Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Perhaps surprisingly, these creeds are widely accepted on critical grounds by nearly all critical scholars today as well. Among the best sources here are Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid, ed. Gary Habermas and Benjamin Charles Shaw (London: Lutterworth, 1949; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018); C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980); and Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). Examples of both non-Christian as well as other skeptical New Testament scholars who recognize this material include Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 97, 131–32, 140–41, 144–46, 155–58, 170–72, 251, 254, 260–63; Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 25–26, 38, 145 (see chap. 6, n. 173), Crossan, Historical Jesus, 293–94, 364; Casey, Jesus, 136, 185–87; Vermes, The Resurrection, 121–23; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 97–99 (see chap. 6, n. 173); and Mack, The Lost Gospel, with a chart on 259.

71 Most notably, Dunn, Jesus Remembered (see chap. 1, n. 3). Also Kenneth Ewing Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 34–54; Bailey, “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Expository Times 106 (1995): 363–67; Keener, Christobiography, 365–496. Two older but influential works are Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1961) and Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970). See also Gerhardsson, Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (see chap. 4, n. 46).

72 Sources such as Q, M, L, one or more pre-Markan Passion sources, and pre-Gospel miracle documents have been discussed throughout this study and relevant details are very commonly found elsewhere. One of the remarkable studies in a very specific area here is Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1492–524 (see chap. 4, n. 40). Dunn, Jesus Remembered, chap. 7; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 2, 6, 9; Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus, 167–79; Robert H. Stein, Gospels and Tradition, chaps. 2, 8; Licona, Differences in the Gospels, 112–16; Keener, Historical Jesus, chaps. 6, 9–10. Non-Christian and other skeptical sources are widely accepted here as well: Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 163–64, 261–63; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 293–94, 429–30, 434–41; Casey, Jesus, 83–84, 108, 133–34; and Mack, Lost Gospel, 2–11, 34–39, 71–80, 181, 259.

73 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament (see chap. 6, n. 3); France, Evidence for Jesus (see chap. 6, n. 3); Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Jesus outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?,” in Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus under Fire, 207–29; Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985); Habermas, Historical Jesus, chaps. 2–4, 8–9, and appendix 3 (see chap. 3, n. 48). On many sometimes surprising examples of additional assistance from archaeological finds, see the scholarly treatment of these areas by Randall Price with H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), particularly 233–93. This also includes a number of skeptical scholars such as Crossan, Historical Jesus, 372–76; Ehrman, New Testament, 195–98 (see chap. 4, n. 34); Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 50–68, plus a few other briefer references such as that by Casey on Josephus in Jesus, 9.

74 One example with regard to the subject of human memory is supplied by Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior (New York: HarperCollins, 2016).

75 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61, with a similar thought on 59.

76 Besides the Ehrman references directly above in this section, further key comments are found in Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 251, 261, and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperCollins, 2014), 138–39.

77 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 145.

78 Ehrman, 131.

79 France, Evidence for Jesus, 124–25.

80 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 404.

81 Of course, David Hume in his famous essay “Of Miracles” made this point quite clearly (see chap. 7, n. 3). Hume’s argument against miracles is evaluated in much depth in two lengthy chapters in volume 2 of this study.

82 See Crossan, Revolutionary Biography, 80–82, 84–86 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 63.

83 For the original study, see Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1988): 826–29, for the quotation, see 826; cf. Randolph C. Byrd with John Sherrill, “On a Wing and a Prayer,” Physician 5 (1993): 14–16, esp. 16 for the comment on the improvement in twenty-one of twenty-six categories.

84 See also William S. Harris et al., “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit,” Archives of Internal Medicine 159 (1999): 2273–78.

85 Brown, Testing Prayer, 74–98.

86 Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015). See also Keener’s Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).

87 Keener, Miracles.

88 It must be kept in mind here that the various species of data notwithstanding, different sorts of information often appeal (or not!) to various kinds of people. Having culled a number of potentially striking cases from Keener’s two volumes on miracles, I found some striking examples: (1) “A sudden disappearance of a child’s massive brain tumor after prayer occurred, before any medical treatment could begin.” The tumor covered almost one-quarter of the girl’s brain, with both pre- and post-MRI confirmation; see Miracles, 1:428. (2) An eight-year-old boy had two holes in his heart, a condition that also impaired his lungs. After prayer he was taken to surgery. But pre- and post-tests showed that the holes that were there the previous day had now been healed. He did not need surgery and was actually cleared to play baseball just two days later; see 1:431–32. (3) A physician recounted that a patient was “immediately cured from metastasized breast cancer after prayer,” confirmed by X-ray; see 1:435.

(4) Another physician confirmed that a woman with tuberculosis was healed after prayer. The physician could also confirm that her cure was permanent because they were later married and spent the rest of their lives together; see 1:435! (5) While away from home at a Christian retreat, a man seriously broke his ankle and went to a hospital, where an orthopedist set the ankle in a cast. Upon arriving home the next day, several states away, the man was sent by another physician to another hospital for X-rays. After studying the pictures, the physician informed the patient that his ankle had actually never been broken, as indicated by the absence of any break or tissue damage where the break was said to have occurred. But the earlier X-rays were ordered, and they clearly confirmed the break. A set of the radiology reports were also sent to Craig Keener; see 1:440! (6) A hospital physician reported watching as a ten-year-old girl’s club foot “straightened before my very eyes” during prayer for the girl’s healing. The attending physician was later interviewed, during which he confirmed that he had witnessed the event personally at close range and that the result was instantaneous; see 1:463. This last example could potentially provide the sort of data that skeptics regularly request pertaining to a limb that grows back. (7) A baby was born without hip sockets or a ball at the end of her bones. The medical plan for her included an involved cast to be worn throughout her life. Church members prayed, and she was reexamined before being placed in the cast. Afterward the physician found that, contrary to the earlier X-rays, the baby now had both hip sockets and the ball at the end of the bone; see 1:503. He declared her to be healed. (8) Forty physicians confirmed the specific case of a cure from Lourdes, France, “of a medically incurable, quadriplegic postencephalitic idiot—a child who went from complete insensibility and lack of control to intelligent normalcy”; see 2:680. (9) In another case described as “naturally inexplicable,” cancer had spread prohibitively in a woman’s body and her physicians could do nothing for her. However, she was cured instantly, including the healing of damaged organs; see 2:682n206.

As mentioned, one of Keener’s theses throughout his two-volume work is that “the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts are generally plausible historically. . . . Similar claims, often from convinced eyewitnesses, circulate widely today, and there are no a priori reasons to doubt that ancient eyewitnesses made analogous claims.” See 1:7. As Keener pointed out: “I will argue . . . that there is some sufficiently strong evidence today to meet an open-minded nonsupernaturalist’s bar of proof.” See 2:607. Some of the cases cited by Keener are summarized in Habermas, Philosophy of History, 43–44 (see chap. 4, n. 28).

89 Keener also reports a number of quite striking exorcism cases; see appendices A and B in volume 2 of Miracles, which are also reported and similarly summarized by Habermas, Philosophy of History, 45. Additionally, Keener includes a large number of religious “power encounters” where Christians were reportedly confronted by witch doctors, voodoo priests, shamans, and so on, who challenged them to face-to-face confrontations with regard to producing healings or other supernatural types of phenomena, along with providing the results of these challenges; see Miracles, 1:232, 269n19, 284n127, 318n62, 561, 586n528, 590, 809n133, 813n165, 836, 839n357, 842–56, again summarized by Habermas, Philosophy of History, 45–48.

90 As an anecdotal story of my own, not long after Keener’s two miracles texts were published, I recommended them to two philosophically minded agnostic friends. We had been engaging in friendly conversations rather than in debate or public dialogue situations. These two agnostics purchased and studied Keener’s books. The next time we communicated, they began by relating that they were completely convinced that at least several of the best-documented cases they had studied had actually occurred and even thought that some were miraculous in nature. They were not Christians, but they considered that this data for present-day miracles was highly probable.

91 David Basinger, “Christian Theism and the Concept of Miracle,” 142–44, (see chap. 7, n. 18).

92 Some twenty-five years before Keener, Wenham and Blomberg, the editors of Miracles of Jesus, made a somewhat reminiscent remark about contemporary miracle stories around the world being similar to the Gospel accounts; see “Preface,” 5.

93 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 60–71, with these examples on 63–71, esp. 720n16; also, Peck, People of the Lie, 182–211.

94 H. Richard Casdorph, The Miracles (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1976); Rex Gardner, Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986).

95 On the often overarching influence of worldview instead of evidence, see Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” 125–29.

96 Chilton, “Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21–28,” in Wenham and Blomberg, Miracles of Jesus, 263. The editors also agree similarly at the outset of the volume that dismissing the Gospel miracle stories because “they are strange to our contemporary outlook would, of course, be unsatisfactory.” See Wenham and Blomberg, “Preface,” 5.

97 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 670.

98 Dunn, 672.

99 Borg, Jesus, The New Vision, with these two citations on 59 and 61.

100 See especially Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, esp. chaps. 1–3 (see chap. 2, n. 33).

101 A significantly limited amount of material especially in this chapter’s critique, accompanied by significant editing, can also be found in earlier materials written by Habermas, including a brief, unpublished paper that was invited by and read to the “Synoptic Gospels Study Group” at the Evangelical Theological Society in Baltimore, Maryland, on November 19, 2013, as well as other previously published writings including Habermas, “Did Jesus Perform Miracles?,” 117–40; Habermas, “Why I Believe the Miracles of Jesus Actually Happened,” in Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, ed. Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 111–24; and Habermas, “Christian Miracle-Claims and Supernatural Causation: Representative Cases from the Synoptic Gospels and Contemporary Accounts,” in Building on the Foundations of Evangelical Theology: Essays in Honor of John S. Feinberg, ed. Gregg R. Allison and Stephen J. Wellum (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 114–31. Some small amounts of the latter work were used by the permission of Crossway Books.

102 Stephen Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths: The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 233. An almost identical quotation is also found in a later, sizably longer edition of this volume published by InterVarsity Press in 1984; see page 286 there.

Part 3

The Minimal Historical Facts

9

Minimal Fact 1: Jesus’s Death

We have mentioned how contemporary critical scholars usually consider Jesus’s death by Roman crucifixion to be the most evidenced and best known historical fact from Jesus’s life. As atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman sums it up, “The most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion is independently attested in a wide array of sources and is not the sort of thing that believers would want to make up about the person proclaimed to be the powerful Son of God.”1 It is noteworthy in terms of our previous study that Ehrman also refers here to two of the authenticity criteria to help make his case: multiple independent attestation and embarrassment.2 Many scholars have also commented on some of the specific political, medical, and other details regarding Jesus’s death.

Our purpose in this chapter is to explore in detail Jesus’s death by crucifixion through a number of different lenses. As our initial minimal fact, especially given Ehrman’s statement above, how much historical and other evidence do we need to establish this event? Does it warrant the assurance that critical scholars virtually always have regarding it? Among the many historical, medical, and other reasons that are helpful in establishing the historicity of the crucifixion, do examples from the criteria of authenticity assist further, such as those that were just enumerated? Do we know the date of this occurrence? Do we have indications that it occupied the center of the Christian faith and preaching? Where do contemporary critical scholars line up on these issues in terms of allowing their historicity? These are relevant features for this chapter and the next.

The Death of Jesus by Crucifixion: The Historical Evidence

Many comments have been made by critical scholars regarding the unquestioned evidence that establishes the historicity of Jesus’s death by crucifixion. So Ehrman’s robust claim that Jesus’s death by crucifixion is the most certain event from Jesus’s life, and even stronger statements still, are far from rare. Ehrman even contends, “That Jesus died by crucifixion is almost universally attested in our sources, early and late.”3 But initially, what is the evidence that would establish this sort of assertion?4 Why is Jesus’s death by Roman crucifixion so seldom questioned, even among the skeptical critical scholars?

Multiple Attestation of Independent Sources

To start, few scholars have answered this initial question more succinctly than Ehrman himself. He lists over twenty independent sources for the historical Jesus,5 at least fifteen of which corroborate the crucifixion of Jesus,6 and all of which he dates to within 100 years after the crucifixion.7 Ten of these sources are drawn from the New Testament,8 while five others are extrabiblical.9 Altogether, they combine for quite an impressive collection of works.10

Even if Ehrman’s very same time limit of one century after Jesus’s death were kept for available data (hence, from approximately AD 30 until 130), the lineup of sources could potentially be expanded further beyond Ehrman’s fifteen. More than one avenue is possible here.

For example, Ehrman regularly mentions the oral creeds and traditions that are embedded within the New Testament Epistles, with other traditions that lie behind some of the Gospel traditions.11 It is held virtually unanimously by scholars that these confessions were not composed by the authors themselves and actually date much earlier than the writings in which they appear.12 Roughly the same could be remarked regarding the Acts sermon summaries, which Ehrman counts in his list of crucifixion sources, though they are not quite as widely recognized by the same majority of scholars. It is rather noteworthy that most of these creeds and preaching summaries center precisely on the death and resurrection of Jesus, though they are chiefly brief reports without many details.13 However, they are still exceptionally early and remain vital witnesses to the Christians’ earliest beliefs.14

A brief corollary may be helpful here. Oscar Cullmann in his classical work on the early creeds differentiates the circumstances for the appearance and usefulness of these traditions in the early church. He suggested that the most common practices involved (1) baptism and catechetical purposes; (2) worship, liturgy, and preaching; (3) exorcism; (4) persecution; and (5) polemics and apologetic applications.15 Cullmann is not the only scholar to make suggestions such as these, as will be observed later. But grouping them in a similar manner, even if necessarily in a very preliminary way, could indicate that such a categorization of these creedal sources might produce a hint of the additional sources that may have played a role in the teaching concerning the historical Jesus and for his death and resurrection in particular.

In other words, since these creedal traditions are cited by more than one New Testament author, writing from various locations and at different times and utilizing different traditions, plus being somewhat different in their length, purpose, application, and so on (say, the briefer references in Paul’s Epistles as contrasted with the Acts sermon summaries), might they also reflect more than a single source? True, this would be difficult to determine more exactly but it certainly remains a potential option.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius appear in Ehrman’s list above, as do a few other authors from outside the New Testament who comment briefly on both Jesus’s death and resurrection and are well within his time range. Not only 1 Clement (7, 12, 21, 42, 49) as well as Ignatius’s epistles such as Trall. 9 and Smyrn. 1 but Polycarp’s To the Philippians (1–2, 7–8, 12) are from approximately the same time. This trio of authors and their nine works, all dated within a decade of the traditional close of the New Testament canon, are indeed important.16 These suggestions concerning Polycarp and the creeds would add at least a few additional sources to Ehrman’s list of fifteen, depending especially on how the latter are demarcated.17

Further, if we were also to increase the distance to about 150 years after the crucifixion (or until about AD 180), we could also add other possibly helpful writings by both non-Christian and gnostic writers. Beyond the five noncanonical works listed by Ehrman (Josephus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tacitus, and the Gospel of Peter), we can add eight noncanonical texts reporting at least the death of Jesus, although differing widely as to their potential scholarly value, each having reported at least the death of Jesus. Among the non-Christian writings, we have already mentioned Tacitus (Ann. 15.44) and the disputed though generally accepted passage in Josephus (Ant. 18.3).18 Additional works include at least the possibility of a few earlier references originating before the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. 106b), Lucian of Samosata’s The Death of Peregrine (11–13), and possibly even the first-century historian Thallus (from a Julius Africanus fragment). The possibly nonexistent Acts of Pilate and the much later Jewish text Toledot Yeshu are of little historical value.

Gnostic works of some potential value include the Gospel of Truth (especially 20:11–14, 25–29) and, while later, the Treatise on the Resurrection (such as 46:14–21). Toward the end of the 150 years after the crucifixion are the works of Justin Martyr (see 1 Apol. 32, 35, 50; Dial. 47, 108). Precisely at the end of this time frame are the writings by the skeptical philosopher Celsus (On the True Doctrine, as reconstructed from Origen’s critique, Contra Celsus) and the major Christian author Irenaeus (especially Against Heresies).19 Admittedly, although the works in this paragraph may be useful in some ways, they are also too late for our purposes.20 If someone were inclined to accept all of these works, this would add significantly to the total sources regarding at least the death of Jesus, often with additional details, by about the year 180.21

When considering this exceptionally large number of sources, recall historian Paul Maier’s assertion that “many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”22 When we take Maier’s comment in tandem with the highly skeptical Jesus Seminar’s report that two or more independent reports are often sufficient to trace an ancient saying to the person in question,23 it might even be concluded that Ehrman’s fifteen independent sources almost amounts to overkill! If one is allowed to read between the lines, Ehrman himself seems to treat this large number as a knockout blow,24 and although very impressive, it is quite far from the only evidence for this event.

In sum, concluding the matter of multiple attestation, even by remaining within Ehrman’s 100-year window after the crucifixion and possibly adding only a few major creeds and Polycarp will increase the total ancient sources that mention the death of Jesus. To add an extra fifty years to the time frame and include the other gnostic, secular, and orthodox sources would then bring the total to well over twenty different, independent texts.25 Especially for historical persons in the ancient world, this very compact time frame is simply exemplary, perhaps even unparalleled.26

Early Testimony

The period from AD 30 to 50, extending from the likely years in between Jesus’s crucifixion and the writing of 1 Thessalonians (probably the earliest New Testament book), has been singled out as a well-recognized time frame where the earliest sources for the historical Jesus would be very valuable, as noted by the Jesus Seminar and others.27 Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann argues that Paul probably brought to Thessalonica “a tradition roughly corresponding” to the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–4. In fact, the apostle “probably used a somewhat similar tradition in every community founded by him.”28

While highlighting individually a number of these creedal texts, Ehrman often groups them together, acknowledging that these “oral traditions” are the “most significant of all” and stating regularly that they “must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s C.E., within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus.”29 There are some exceptionally vital issues involved here, such as why these reports are so respected by critical scholars and thought to be so authoritative, and these are among the most crucial items to investigate in our later chapters on this subject.

Such insights and conclusions could help provide a glimpse of what the earliest Christian teaching looked like before a single New Testament volume had been written. Within this range, all things being considered carefully, the earlier sources would tend to be the stronger ones, especially when drawn from solid foundations. These early creeds and probably some of the sermon summaries, in that order, would be among the strongest candidates here. It is precisely during this time that most of these traditions are dated.

Often termed the pre-Pauline traditions, the best known of these creeds (such as 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3–7) are often dated by critical scholars to AD 30–40.30 We will develop the actual case for the creedal traditions and sermon summaries later in our research,31 but for now it will simply be pointed out that Ehrman does not hesitate to repeat on many occasions that some of these sources date to a mere one or two years after the crucifixion of Jesus!32 We will observe that many other scholars agree with this early dating on these Christian essentials as mentioned by Ehrman, Lüdemann, and others.

Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony regarding Jesus’s death could most likely have come primarily from the female disciples who were present at both the crucifixion and the burial of Jesus according to each of the Gospel accounts.33 These observations will figure separately in the discussion directly below, but for now, more than one dose of embarrassment plus the multiple attestations here are difficult to miss. Not only are the female disciples the heroes and the ones who can best relate what happened on these occasions, but most of the men were largely either in hiding or at least were nowhere to be seen!

But the possibility cannot be ruled out that a few male disciples at least potentially could have witnessed at least some of the burial proceedings as well. The Gospel of John states that the apostle John was directly present at the crucifixion, standing there with Jesus’s mother, Mary (John 19:26–27, 35). Luke explains that Peter remained in the vicinity during at least some of the events (Luke 22:54, 61–62). Further, we are told both Peter and John visited the tomb personally and verified its emptiness, so they also were witnesses to its whereabouts and knew where to locate it along with a few of the other circumstances, such as the presence of the graveclothes (John 20:2–9; Luke 24:12, 22–24). So it is at least possible that male disciples had witnessed relevant events too.

Moreover, another crucial sequence of events is often likewise forgotten. All four Gospels affirm that Joseph of Arimathea,34 identified as a secret disciple who was looking for God’s kingdom, and Nicodemus (added in John’s Gospel as having assisted Joseph, especially in John 19:39) performed Jesus’s burial and could certainly have been present at the crucifixion. After all, at least Joseph knew when Jesus had died as well as how to approach Pilate to request Jesus’s dead body. In addition to the burial itself, at the very least it appears possible that Joseph was present when the Roman centurion who presided over Jesus’s crucifixion was called in before Pilate to assure him that Jesus had already died (Mark 15:44–45). For our purposes, that would have been an important meeting to witness. Tom Wright translates the passage like this: “When he [Pilate] learned the facts from the centurion, he conceded the body to Joseph” (15:45).35

Regardless of what is concluded concerning the amount and quality of the information that the male disciples may have contributed,36 the women undoubtedly had a unique and distinct viewpoint on all these events. After Jesus’s resurrection and ascension, we are told that the women were among the disciples who had gathered together (Acts 1:14). So it would be almost unfathomable that the details of the crucifixion and burial accounts would not have been shared with the male disciples, not to mention whatever specifics may have been contributed from the males to the women, or from other witnesses such as Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus. Simple testimonies at public worship or other discussions from those who were spectators at whatever level would also have spread the eyewitness knowledge of the facts.

Granted, it is often difficult to tell precisely how much eyewitness data can be drawn from the Gospels. Still, it is also known that informational sharing of various sorts took place in the early church. Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem to talk with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, for a period of two weeks is certainly a wonderful example (Gal 1:18–20). His second trip to Jerusalem included these same three leaders plus the apostle John, meaning that the four most influential Christians in the early church were present (Gal 2:1–10). The upshot of this and other such discussions resulted in Paul’s report that the other apostles were preaching the same message that he was regarding the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus (1 Cor 15:11).

Few if any authors have done more to explore the potential role of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels and elsewhere than has Richard Bauckham. He argues that the likely consensus position of critical scholars is that Paul probably received the pre-Pauline creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 just shortly after the crucifixion.37 Scholars are divided on whether the so-called Jerusalem Council narrated in Acts 15 is the same event as one of these earlier meetings that Paul discusses—probably the one in Galatians 2—or may indicate still another such conversation.38 The many other possible avenues involve how Gospel authors appear to utilize eyewitness testimony, as with the question of the pre-Markan Passion Narrative, among other possibilities.39

Dissimilarity

Once again, Bart Ehrman is helpful in another historical matter.40 He makes the point forcefully that the tradition regarding Jesus’s death by crucifixion passes perhaps the most rigorous of the criteria of authenticity—the test of dissimilarity—and actually does so “with flying colors.” The Jews did not expect a crucified messiah.41 Since the early disciples of Jesus were shocked, dejected, and disheartened by the occurrence of the crucifixion, it is clear that this event caught them by surprise as well. Under such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that either Jewish or Christian teachings caused or gave rise to such a tradition. It is for that reason actually far more likely that the crucifixion actually happened.

So clearly Jesus’s death at the hands of the Romans was a shocking occurrence from a variety of circumstances. Ehrman explains the situation clearly and well: “When we encounter a story about Jesus that does not support an early Christian agenda or that seems to run contrary to what the early Christians would have wanted to say about Jesus, as we saw, the story is more likely to be historically reliable since it is less likely to have been made up.”42 It was precisely because the Jews did not recognize the concept of a crucified messiah that this entire scenario “created enormous headaches for the Christian mission.” Therefore, it may be concluded, “This tradition clearly passes the criterion of dissimilarity.”43

Embarrassment

Further, we do not want to miss the forest for the trees here: Jesus’s death by crucifixion was one huge example of the criterion of embarrassment all by itself! The Old Testament law pronounced a curse on anyone who was hung on a tree (Deut 21:22–23). Add to this that Jesus supposedly presented himself as the messiah of Israel. Then, not only did he fail to defeat the Romans, as many if not most Jews of that time believed that the Messiah would accomplish, but in a real snafu, he was ignominiously killed by them instead, hanging alongside two common criminals in the process! There is hardly any way to save face here!

What kind of a messiah, or even a prophet for that matter, could have miscalculated so badly and been so clearly mistaken, especially when virtually no Jews even expected the Messiah to die in the first place? And how could he have set up his kingdom if he was dead and buried? This picture is far from the common notion that an average first-century Jew would have entertained. That is simply not the kind of leader that they thought they needed—or desired, either. It is hardly a wonder that Paul called the crucifixion a stumbling block to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23)!44 He and other preachers had their hands full in attempting to make this portrait look presentable!

But let us be clear here that this event was not an easy one for the early disciples to understand and swallow either. How could they combine “Son of God” and “Son of Man” with “beaten up badly and killed by the hated Romans”? Perhaps we see a little glimpse of this even earlier when we are told that Peter and the others failed to understand Jesus’s words (Mark 9:31–32) and that they reacted so strongly (Mark 8:31–33; 14:27–31) when Jesus told them that he was going up to Jerusalem to die. It apparently did not help even when Jesus also included the message of his resurrection in the same context (as he did in each of these venues, including Mark 10:33–34).

In our preceding material above, we introduced two additional embarrassing situations. Initially, another well-known example is that the women were present at the crucifixion and served as the chief witnesses to Jesus’s death, a situation that was multiply attested as well. Further, the women were also present during Jesus’s burial process, when their testimony in the first-century Mediterranean world was also rather severely limited.45 That the very heart of the Christian message should rest to a large extent on female testimony is simply amazing, unless of course it is the truth. In other words, it is almost inconceivable to think that any concocted story would make the women the prime witnesses to those events, given that such testimony would be ignored regularly and even castigated by many hearers.

Another argument from embarrassment concerns the absence of the majority of the male disciples, who had scattered or disappeared for fear of their lives (as in Mark 14:50; Matt 26:56; John 20:19) while the women appeared to be stronger and remained with Jesus through all this suffering. It is difficult to imagine that these awkward and humiliating incidents would have been preached loudly regarding the apostles, who were later among the emboldened church leaders when this material was disseminated but were almost nowhere to be found here when the going was so tough.

Enemy Attestation

More than one species of enemy attestation can be found in these texts as well. The Jewish leaders who were present during the process of the crucifixion also witnessed Jesus’s death. And while we do not have their direct testimony, their very presence and their actions serve as a rough parallel to their responses to Jesus’s miracles. Marcus Borg states that the Jewish leaders’ attribution of Jesus’s miracles to Satan serves as an implicit agreement that these events had actually occurred. It is one reason why Borg concludes that Jesus was a miracle worker.46 Similarly, the Jewish leaders’ repeated taunting of Jesus before their eventual trek away from the crucifixion scene before or perhaps even during the time when the body was removed from the cross is a clear indication that they were utterly convinced and more than satisfied that Jesus was indeed dead.47 Given their presence there, it would seem that their recognition of Jesus’s death would have to be the conclusion of their finally leaving the scene, given such a long, agonizing process of attempting to silence Jesus.

Further and almost needless to say, the presence of the Roman soldiers, also followed later by their disbanding and leaving the area when their job was finished, is probably even a stronger indication of enemy attestation.48 As much as the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be dead, the consequences were far more dire if the Romans had left the scene of the crucifixion before the job was entirely completed. In fact, though it concerned King Herod rather than Pilate, Acts 12:19 reports that when Peter disappeared from his jail cell, even by supernatural means, the guards were interviewed. The result was that the order was then given by Herod that the guards should be put to death. This is what might be called enemy attestation with a real vengeance!

Perhaps more significantly as well as also being multiply attested, Mark explains that Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate and requested Jesus’s dead body for burial (15:42–43). Pilate was surprised that it had all ended so quickly, so he called the centurion to be absolutely sure, and Jesus’s death was confirmed. Only then did Pilate allow Jesus’s body to be buried by Joseph (15:44–45).49 This process of careful confirmation is significant.

A last example of the criterion of enemy attestation concerns Matthew’s report that the chief priests and Pharisees visited Pilate after the crucifixion and requested that a guard be granted to keep watch at Jesus’s tomb, with Pilate approving their wish.50 This matter is usually taken by critical scholars to be a clear example of an unhistorical apologetic gloss by Matthew, so its use here would depend on the researcher’s assessment. A fairly recent doctoral dissertation in Finland argued that there were signs that Matthew had actually employed an early tradition that predated this account.51

It is certainly significant to note at this juncture that the string of reported actions or words by the Jewish leaders, the Roman soldiers, the Roman centurion himself, and even Pilate provide clear indications that are sometimes multiply attested as well. At each of these points, an array of data is more than clear that each person or group was absolutely certain that Jesus had been crucified, was assuredly dead, and could then be buried. This is a weighty number of witnesses who had their own reasons for being sure that Jesus had not survived the crucifixion.

Another crucial consideration is raised by Michael Licona. The probability of a person having survived crucifixion in the ancient world was exceptionally low, and there are only a couple of known examples of it happening. Josephus explains that among the Jews who had been crucified in the conflict with Rome, he found three of his acquaintances who had already been hoisted up on crosses. He quickly sought out his friend, the Roman commander Titus, who ordered that the three men be taken down immediately. The men avoided the completion of the crucifixion process, but only because they had been rescued purposely before the conclusion. Still, in spite of getting the best medical care available, Josephus tells us that two of the three men died anyway.52 So from all we know concerning crucifixion, Jesus’s odds of surviving the cross were very bleak. It is even possible that no one had survived the full process of this gruesome execution procedure.53

To summarize even briefly the historical evidence for the crucifixion and death of Jesus will reveal that the amount of data available is much more than might be expected.54 To begin by saying that this material is multiply and independently attested might even be called a huge understatement. Easily more than a dozen in-dependent sources from within 100 years (with the majority of these texts dating from the first century, with all but a handful of them within the first 70 years) is almost an unbelievably rich case of multiple attestation, especially for an ancient event. These sources encompass orthodox Christian, Jewish, gnostic, and pagan texts, both canonical as well as noncanonical. This number grows to close to two dozen if we proceed a little beyond the 100 years.

Some of these sources contain a good amount of exceptionally early material as even recognized by skeptical scholars. Other reports strongly appear to have been either gathered from eyewitnesses themselves or else based on eyewitness reports. This characterizes these data even more positively. Besides the multiple attestation, earliness, and eyewitness nature of some reports that these texts likewise pass the criteria of dissimilarity, several species of embarrassment and examples of enemy attestation just deepen the richness of the foundation here. Scholars have noted that the key markers for historical authenticity are multiple attestation, early and eyewitness testimony, along with discontinuity, with each being well represented in this case. Lastly, the historical sources indicate that the chances of Jesus getting down off the cross alive were virtually nil.

It is no wonder that so many critical researchers never question the existence of Jesus, for if he died then he obviously must have lived. Moreover, the evidence indicates clearly that Jesus’s death by crucifixion is probably the most firmly established event in his life. Perhaps this is why so very few scholars today challenge this fact. Even skeptical academic John Dominic Crossan declares: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”55 Marcus Borg agrees with Ehrman’s statement in concluding that Jesus’s execution is “the most certain fact about the historical Jesus.”56 New Testament skeptic Gerd Lüdemann asserts equally strongly that “the fact of Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”57 This matter could hardly be affirmed much more succinctly or firmly. This is quite impressive approval from scholars who are not compelled to arrive at such conclusions unless they are clearly warranted by the data at hand, and they think that the known facts here warrant this firm conclusion.

The Death of Jesus by Crucifixion: The Medical Evidence

We have seen that ancient historical sources that proclaim the death of Jesus by crucifixion are quite plentiful, including Christian, Jewish, and pagan sources, and are impressively detailed in their information. The canonical Gospels are the most detailed of the crucifixion accounts in the ancient world.58 This is especially the case when the sources are present in the large numbers and quality seen in this chapter. Still, how do we know that Jesus actually died on the cross? In other words, we have no shortage of reports from friends, foes, and in between that this was Jesus’s fate. But do we know that such a demise is actually the consequence of crucifixion?

In this chapter we will not be directing our comments toward the various advocates of the old swoon or apparent death hypotheses, mostly from their eighteenth- and nineteenth-century heydays.59 So there will be no effort to entertain, evaluate, or refute any of these views here, though that remains for a lengthy discussion in the next volume of this series. This section is chiefly concerned with investigating some of the relevant medical information concerning how crucifixion most likely led to the death of its victims to complement and round out our previous discussion of the historical data indicating that Jesus died in this manner.

Many medical studies especially in recent decades or so have examined the relevant details regarding the nature of crucifixion.60 While medical researchers differ on particular questions, a number of conclusions often coalesce around several key themes regarding the general cause of death by crucifixion. A few studies were even carried out on cadavers or living volunteers, who in the latter case were always affixed to their “crosses” without nails or other injurious methods, of course! Some of the particulars of how crucifixion was actually performed in the ancient world can and did vary quite widely, depending upon the executioner’s sadistic interests, but the victims’ paths to death could still take some similar routes. As will be indicated, positions on this subject have merged somewhat in recent years. The majority view is that of asphyxiation and is often expressed popularly by statements such that the primary requirement was for the victims’ arms to be suspended and affixed over the head in such a manner that gravity would take its normal course and induce the inability to breathe.

The Cause of Death by Crucifixion

Many physicians and other medical researchers have published their conclusions on the nature of death by crucifixion, both in general and particularly regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. Theories pertaining to the chief causes of death have varied, and often for good reasons, because crucifixion techniques themselves often varied so widely.

Causes of death from crucifixion have been hypothesized as occurring from heart failure, shock, pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism, coagulopathy, or suspension trauma.61 Some of these views might be thought of as being close to others in that they are anatomically related in some way or another. But it seems clear that physicians often agree that the cause of death in crucifixion is “multifactorial.” In other words, as in everyday life, medical personnel will often list two or three conditions that may all contribute to causing an individual’s death. Some researchers may describe these as primary and secondary causes.62

By far the most common explanation provided by medical scholars in the literature is that crucifixion induces asphyxiation, perhaps even if victims are simply left to themselves with little or no interference. This was the most common view a number of decades ago,63 and in spite of a few newer options, like those mentioned above during the past few decades, it clearly remains the most popular observation at present.64

While sometimes only a single medical source or two supports some of the other options mentioned above, more than two dozen medically trained scholars cited here favor asphyxiation as the chief mechanism that most likely causes death during crucifixion. This does not solve the issue entirely, but it should at least make us pause and think due to the data that lies behind these scholarly choices.65 It even seems to be the case that the medical investigators that favor asphyxiation could very well double all of the other medical options combined!66

To repeat, it should be noted again that it is never being argued anywhere in this entire study that the greater number of scholars somehow establishes the views under consideration, in this case that of asphyxiation as the chief cause of death in crucifixion. Apart from assumptions of that nature, there are likely some reasons why the vast majority of medical specialists take this popular option. It needs to be inquired if this widespread conclusion is justified by the relevant research and backed by strong arguments of its own.

Researchers in the medical community who favor the asphyxiation option seem to think that victims will expire chiefly on their own, as the muscles in their own bodies virtually throttle their own lungs due to weight, fatigue, the positioning of the body, and so on. Other medical conditions would certainly factor into the equation here as well, though as lesser contributors. Many of the medical sources above often describe the process in roughly similar terms. While hanging in the “low” position on the cross, with the arms extended outward from or over the head, with the knees bending upward, holding that posture for a varying amount of time would cause the individuals to begin asphyxiating from the pressure on the lungs. The weight of the body essentially pulled down on the intercostal, pectoral, and deltoid muscles surrounding the lungs, which in turn made it very difficult to exhale. A great amount of pain was involved as well, as might be imagined.

If the sufferers could push into variations of the “up” position, most often on feet that were punctured by nails, this could potentially reduce the tension on the lungs at least somewhat. That in turn would usually allow the victim to breathe a little more easily, though usually more quickly, more shallowly, and with pain. But pushing up and down in this manner would grow progressively more difficult due to many potential factors, such as a prior beating that could well have been nearly lethal in itself, the resulting near-total exhaustion, blood loss, lesser amounts of oxygen progressively getting into the lungs and the rest of the body’s cells and organs, the heat of the day, the absence of food and perhaps liquids as well, the pierced arms and feet, and even gravity itself. As the victim stayed in the “down” position for progressively longer periods of time, asphyxiation would set in more deeply and quickly. To occupy the lower position for any length of time often meant that death had already occurred.

Thomas Miller introduces another seldom-mentioned aspect of the subject. He contends that asphyxiation is much more than the obvious aspects of the lungs themselves not functioning properly. Actually, it is a matter of internal bodily operations as well because of the “inadequate oxygen availability to body tissues because of disturbed lung function, resulting ultimately in multiple organ dysfunction, unconsciousness, and death.” The huge amount of blood loss induced by the flogging would mean a significant “decrease in the oxygen carrying capacity of the remaining circulating blood in Jesus’ body.” In short, less circulating blood would have translated to less oxygen being delivered to Jesus’s bodily tissues, resulting in severe functional compromise. The “severe pain” as well as the “pure exhaustion” would also contribute ultimately to the “decreased hemoglobin in the blood,” making it “virtually impossible” to achieve “adequate tissue oxygenation.”67

Other medical conditions were factors too. Most commonly, medical scholars hypothesize that more primary damage such as that described here might lead to other serious problems, such as congestive heart failure and shock. Beyond being quite hideous by itself, crucifixion is an ingenious method in the sense that no medical doctor is needed to be sure the victim is dead, and a coroner does not need to do an autopsy. Remaining in the lower position only invites death and would indicate that this posture exceeded mere unconsciousness. Just affix the individual in a roughly similar manner and he is bound to die even if left on his own. It is an incredibly nasty procedure that gets the job done in a way that obviously makes a public statement and definitely serves as a deterrent to additional would-be misbehavers.

Regarding the important question of how crucifixion victims were usually affixed to their crosses, John Granger Cook has supplied very important details.68 He contrasts the use of nails versus other methods in the ancient literature. Especially in cases of Roman crucifixion, nails were utilized far more often than other means.69 Other potentially important details have been supplied here as well.70

Contrary to this asphyxiation research, Frederick Zugibe’s own detailed inquiry has probably received the most attention largely due to his experiments with volunteers to better ascertain the possible cause of death by crucifixion.71 Zugibe admits that the asphyxiation thesis is the “most widely held theory” but that it turns out to be “completely untenable when tested empirically.”72 Having “crucified” many volunteers, he confirmed that the angle of the arms is an extremely crucial matter, as other researchers have also shown. Zugibe admits that breathing difficulties are indeed the result the closer the arms are brought up toward the head, as confirmed by his own experiments,73 whereas that was not the case with his volunteers given their arm angles.74

Zugibe suspended volunteers between twenty and thirty-five years of age on an actual cross. Rather than nails, of course, gauntlets were utilized to affix their hands, with seat belts for their feet. During the process, Zugibe used an EKG to monitor their hearts as well as also measure their blood pressure and their blood oxygen. The latter actually increased in all cases due to hyperventilating!

The individuals’ arms were stretched out at 60–70 degrees. But their bodies rarely even touched the wood of the cross except slightly in the region of the shoulders. The volunteers constantly shifted position to relieve their various strains, cramps, and other discomforts, and most frequently experienced pain in their extremities. Usually, the volunteers’ chests grew rigid and their breathing emanated from their abdominal regions. They tended to inhale often and in shorter breaths but exhaled more slowly. Only a few of them ever reported having any difficulty in breathing, though it disappeared later in those cases. No doubt, his research needs to be addressed.

Zugibe clearly thinks that actual experimenting is exceptionally important, and few would deny its use. However, he was not the only physician who did significant crucifixion experiments.75 The French surgeon Pierre Barbet’s many tests were infamous and among the earliest in crucifixion research, not to mention Barbet’s research on actual cases of crucifixion and hanging that occurred in the German concentration camps. Like Zugibe, German radiologist Hermann Mödder also experimented with volunteers, though he received radically different results. Also like Zugibe, Robert Bucklin was another American pathologist and medical examiner, but Bucklin actually got up on a model cross himself to observe the consequences!76 And he testified that the deltoid and pectoral muscles “promptly assume a state of spasm, and the victim so suspended is physically unable to make use of his thoracic muscles of respiration.”77

So how do we decide the rather large differences between these two models? For a particular example, why the difference between Zugibe’s cases and Bucklin’s personal experience on a cross? Perhaps the main issue before us is that we do not know the angle of Jesus’s arms during his crucifixion. This could be absolutely crucial, for it appears to be the case that the positioning of the arms may provide the chief determination of whether or not Jesus asphyxiated. So are there other ways to determine how he died?

Barbet proposed that there were at least a couple of indications that asphyxiation accounted for Jesus’s death. Even though crurifragium did not occur to Jesus, Barbet thought that the practice of breaking the victim’s ankles to hasten death was more consistent with the purpose of inducing asphyxiation more quickly. Moreover, in the cases from the German concentration camps, the victims asphyxiated due to the inability to exhale.78 But were these cases analogous to one another?

The initial point regarding breaking the ankles of crucifixion victims seems to be difficult for Zugibe to explain and favors Barbet rather strongly, especially since Zugibe concedes that Jehohanan, the crucifixion victim whose bones were discovered in Israel in 1968, did indeed have his legs broken in such a manner.79 However, Zugibe responded that the ankles also could have been broken in this case to induce shock, which is his preferred hypothesis for what occurred to Jesus on the cross.80

However, the ancient Romans would more likely have been aware of an asphyxiating individual who could not breathe, as opposed to one who was in a state of shock, as the most prominent cause for death, since they could observe the former all too readily if it were the case. Besides, if producing shock had been the goal, they could presumably have landed a blow to any of many places on the human body. But why is crurifragium one of the preferred methods to end crucifixion? This round seems to go clearly to Barbet.

Regarding Barbet’s second argument, Zugibe is correct to point out that the victims in the German concentration camps had their hands affixed directly above their heads, and Barbet is thereby guilty of “extrapolating two completely different physiological situations.” As we saw above, Zugibe even concedes that if such a situation were the case, then it would indicate some greater merit for the thesis of asphyxiation.81 However, these are not comparable situations.

Numerous reports from Barbet’s eyewitness interviews and elsewhere have attested that the Nazi crucifixions were concluded very quickly. Zias records that, depending on how they were crucified, the prisoners often died in just ten minutes to an hour.82 Mödder’s German experiments yielded similar results, with unconsciousness coming in a maximum of just twelve minutes.83 But these data favor Zugibe’s point that these German cases are not very analogous to Roman crucifixions, given the different conditions and much longer periods of time that the latter were known to take. After all, Mark explains Pilate’s surprise that Jesus has died so quickly (Mark 15:44–45). However, that the German deaths occurred in a much briefer time span, under different circumstances, and by asphyxiation, still fails to prove that asphyxiation did not also occur with the different design of the Roman cases; that conclusion is a non sequitur. The Roman victims could still have asphyxiated, though hours or even a couple of days later.

So the overall argument tends to cut both ways. It appears the most vital question here is, How we can know precisely where and how Jesus’s arms were positioned on the cross? As Zias states, “The latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated, depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross.”84 Christian art notwithstanding (though this apparently holds some major importance for Zugibe), can we know for sure either that Jesus’s arms were positioned straight out, as in Zugibe’s experiments, or closer to a position over his head, more like Barbet and Mödder? Though the latter could result in quicker death, it must be remembered that Jesus’s feet were affixed to the cross too, unlike the usual German examples, so this alone would lengthen the process.

Intriguingly, Zugibe’s own book diagrams just such an upright stake as a possible model for crucifixion.85 Or perhaps Jesus’s cross was actually more like one of Zugibe’s next two more traditional structures diagramed there, with Jesus’s arms both being nailed either more or less straight across or more upward, well above his head. But how close would Jesus’s arms be to the stipes? The overall debate on this particular aspect seems difficult to determine. Though Zugibe’s retort draws upon his employing more detailed experimental methods, it should be remembered that Barbet and Mödder also experimented with cadavers and living volunteers as well. For example, while Roman crucifixion victims may not have had their arms extended directly overhead, as in the German cases, the final outcome may still have been a slower brand of asphyxiation!

So far, then, there seem to be some strong considerations both for and against asphyxiation as the chief cause of death in crucifixion. Zugibe’s most impressive point seems to be his scientific techniques that simply appear to come down to a point where asphyxiation seems to be experimentally doubtful.86

Yet, strangely enough, experiments such as Zugibe’s have been questioned and could also serve as crucial weaknesses! In their medical evaluations mentioned above, Maslen and Mitchell note that Zugibe’s research is open to many crucial criticisms. Zugibe’s volunteers obviously were not actually being crucified, they remained on the crosses for only comparatively brief periods of time, they had not suffered prior scourging or carried a portion of their heavy cross, and they did not experience the resulting dehydration, heat, excessive anxiety, and especially the nails. Hence, Zugibe’s experiments were judged to be too inauthentic—they produced “only limited relevance to actual cases.”87

Perhaps worst of all, Maslen and Mitchell charged that Zugibe had never presented any actual evidence indicating that shock was the chief cause of Jesus’s death. They also judged that Zugibe had not disproved the asphyxiation theses, presumably because the absence of breathing difficulties in his volunteers was not determinative due to this lack of experimental authenticity. As they assert: “The longest time any were left on the cross seems to have been limited, on account of the physical discomfort of being on the cross. Since it was extremely rare for anyone in Roman times to die on a cross within the first few hours, it could be argued that the time scale of the study cannot disprove the asphyxiation theory.”88

Still more crucial questions also remain here for Zugibe’s position. Does Zugibe’s thesis depend too much on the truth of the Shroud of Turin as well as on the accuracy of Christian artwork?89 Most significantly, how can we be sure of the exact position and angle of Jesus’s feet and arms during crucifixion, especially when Zugibe’s theory relies significantly on that knowledge? While several aspects of Zugibe’s experiments as a whole are impressive in several aspects, can we know that they are close enough to Jesus’s example of crucifixion that there is no room for any major errors or other considerations? These are easily overlooked and very difficult issues indeed.

One of the more provocative arguments favoring those who champion asphyxiation as the most likely of the major causes of Jesus’s death on the cross is the precise placement of the crurifragium procedure in breaking the victim’s legs or ankles. Even though there are not many historical cases on record, its practice on a number of occasions is still provocative.90 Further, though much more limited, the experimental data still argue that some of those who tried out model crosses themselves, such as the pathologist Robert Bucklin, did indeed report significant breathing difficulties along with chest pain.

Two additional observations ought to at least be mentioned here. First, we have commented at length that the angle of the victim’s arms may be quite significant. But if crurifragium is a decent argument favoring death by asphyxiation, and if it was sometimes the preferred choice made by the Romans and others to hasten deaths such as with all three of the crucified men in this particular case (even if it was never actually done to Jesus), then that is indeed a consideration that favors the notion that the men were affixed to their crosses in such a manner that they would indeed asphyxiate if they could not constantly push up to breathe.

From a slightly different perspective here, in spite of our not knowing today the exact angle of Jesus’s arms on the cross, if the soldiers chose to apply crurifragium to the men’s legs, then this argues that the Romans at least thought it likely that the men might die of asphyxiation. It was thus a consideration that was calculated into the very process itself. We will turn to this subject in the next section below.91

The second consideration is this: if the victim’s feet or leg bones were crushed or cut through, the crucified individual presumably could not push up and down. Indeed, that would have been the chief purpose of the blows in the first place. But if the legs were essentially unusable, what made these victims significantly different from those in the Mödder experiments or in the Nazi prison camp cases, where the legs could similarly have been of little or even no help at all? Sure, the arm angles between Zugibe’s and Mödder’s volunteers would still be somewhat different, as they may even have varied from one person to the next one. But the more decisive question is whether Zugibe’s patients would also have asphyxiated or passed out in a comparatively brief time if their feet or ankles likewise did not help them at all? Thus, perhaps it was the case that Zugibe’s volunteers did not asphyxiate precisely because they were able to use their feet and legs for the crucial support that was necessary, plus the brief duration of time of their stints on the cross. In short, perhaps smashing or cutting the victim’s lower legs would essentially have turned Zugibe’s patients into Mödder’s patients, in which case asphyxiation could definitely still have obtained!

Actually, one or both of the arguments just made above may have swung the pendulum sharply in the direction of death by asphyxiation. But for now, we will leave this portion of the discussion noting that there appear to be some excellent reasons why death by asphyxiation is easily the most common medical view today, as Zugibe himself acknowledged.92 Further, there is widespread agreement among medical researchers that a combination of several other possibilities also exist, all of which could actually be true of particular crucifixions given the multifarious nature of what we know about this heinous form of capital punishment. Even the physical descriptions that exist from both ancient and modern times of the widely ingenious procedures provide grounds for these medical suggestions.

Before concluding this discussion and its disagreements, a bit of common ground needs to be emphasized. As Retief and Cilliers wisely point out, “Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones.”93 Thus, it just seems that so many horrible and violent acts were often perpetrated upon crucifixion victims that there were simply many different avenues that would end up at the same destination, in that the underlying scenarios would cause death via cardiac arrest.94 By whatever means this occurred, a life had obviously ended at that point. Crucifixion just includes many methods that could get a person to the same terminus, but like a road map, however the finale came about, cardiac arrest would be the end result.95

The Death Blow

Perhaps there is another way to approach some of these matters. We have narrowed considerably some of the chief options in death by crucifixion. But for the topics that we are considering in this study, knowing the precise answer to the question of exactly how Jesus died is nowhere near as crucial as knowing that Jesus died by crucifixion. So, are there any additional indications that Jesus was indeed dead—that he did not get down from the cross alive? May we then, with some assurance, affirm that he had actually died?

Historical and Archaeological Reports

From both Christian and non-Christian writers alike in the ancient world, we learn that often near the end of the crucifixion process, a death blow of some kind would be rendered to the victim. The reason for this culmination could be either to hasten the individual’s death and sometimes to do so as quickly as possible, or to be absolutely sure that the person was not simply in a coma, passed out, or otherwise in danger of getting down off the cross alive. The lives of those who carried out the procedures could depend on whether the job had been carried out properly as well.

John 19:31–35 relates the Jewish leaders were anxious that the bodies of the three crucifixion victims would not remain on the crosses when the Sabbath began, which traditionally was about sundown that same (Friday) afternoon. So they went to Pilate and requested that he give orders to the soldiers to break the men’s legs so that their bodies could be taken down quickly.

Pilate agreed to their wish, and the Roman soldiers promptly broke the legs of the men on each side of Jesus. But when the soldiers got to Jesus, they did not break his legs because it was obvious to them that he was already dead.96 So one of the guards reached up with his spear and pierced Jesus’s side, causing blood and water to flow down from the open wound. Then a statement was made in John 19:35, claiming that the eyewitness who saw all of these things is the one who provided this true, firsthand testimony.

This process regarding the other two crucifixion victims, crurifragium, is well known and can be observed in the relevant historical and medical literature. It is found elsewhere in the ancient world as well, in the areas of history and archaeology, performed in a manner like that described in John. Crurifragium was employed simply as breaking someone’s legs as a punishment by itself,97 or it was used in conjunction with crucifixion as a means to an end. In the latter case, Cicero speaks cynically of a man who died by breaking his ankles in a fall, commenting that he thereby avoided the breaking of his ankles during crucifixion (Fat. 5)! In Philippics, Cicero makes other allusions to crurifragium and crucifixion, using them together in the same context.98

The Gospel of Peter (4:14) also refers to the practice of breaking the legs of crucifixion victims, though it intriguingly is not actually performed on any of the three crucified men. Both Crossan and Ehrman think that the Gospel of Peter is an independent source.99 Additionally, in the Acts of Andrew (which John Dominic Crossan dates to the second century AD),100 a couple other references are made to the command not to use nails or sever Andrew’s knees during his crucifixion to force him to suffer for a longer time.101 It may be the case, then, that the report in John’s Gospel is confirmed at least in part by these backup references from the ancient world.

We have already discussed the debate concerning the first-century crucifixion victim Jehohanan (the name is spelled variously), whose reburied bones had been discovered in a Jewish ossuary in 1968. He was nailed through both feet and possibly through the arms as well. It had initially been concluded that Jehohanan’s leg bones had been smashed to hasten death, but later studies argued that this last matter was “inconclusive.”102 Subsequent commentators have since lined up on both sides of the discussion, with probably most of them reporting that the victim’s legs were probably broken to rush the end result of his execution.103

Recently, it has also been reported in an intriguing discussion by Kristina Killgrove, a bioarchaeologist at the University of West Florida, that another excavation in Mendes in the Nile Delta region may have turned up the possible discovery of two additional ancient cases of male crucifixion victims who also were “subject to crurifragium.”104 In spite of still another possible archaeological discovery of another apparent crucifixion victim’s bones that does not include broken ankles, the journal article did list crurifragium, a blow to the sternum, or piercing the heart with a spear as several regular means of inducing death.105

Given the relative rarity of actual medical or archaeological discoveries related to crucifixion victims, these three potential cases plus other scholarly references seem to offer a fairly good amount of potentially helpful data concerning the use of crurifragium in addition to the other historical references provided above. Altogether then, breaking, cutting, or smashing leg or ankle bones seems well-enough attested in the ancient world, and this method favors the asphyxiation death theory for crucified victims as well.

Crurifragium is probably the best known form of premortem blow, but it was not the only way that the crucifixion process was ended quickly, as mentioned in the relevant literature. Hengel mentions a couple other ancient accounts where a coup de grâce comes into play in crucifixion-like settings. For instance, the historian Duris recounts that the ruler of Samos apparently had ten leaders from the city of Pericles tied to planks. But after they had suffered and were still alive for several days, the ruler ordered his men to crush their skulls with cudgels. In a similar fictional account in Aristophanes, while a man who had been nailed to a plank was writhing in pain, a bowman taunted him and then threatened to kill him, presumably with an arrow.106

Medical specialists who have combed the historical and medical literature have mentioned these and other ancient practices to ensure death.107 The “Roman guards were known to precipitate death” by methods such as deliberately fracturing the legs, stabbing a spear into the heart through the upper abdomen or chest, making sharp blows to the chest, or even by starting a smoking fire to asphyxiate the victim!108 Even apart from the details regarding Jesus’s chest wound, it makes sense that the upper chest is precisely one of the principal places where a veteran Roman soldier would stab an enemy to end the fight in the quickest manner.

Medical Indications

The applications of such death blows would certainly seem sufficient to finish off the crucifixion victim, especially after their already-prolonged torture and suffering before that point. As might be expected, most medical commentators have concentrated on the results of the two methods of crurifragium and the spear thrust due to the connection with Jesus’s crucifixion. As described above, it is probably the case that crurifragium is mostly discussed in the context of asphyxiation.

What about the chest wound? Helpfully, the Greek term for where the Roman spear was placed, pleura, at least implies the upper chest region of the body rather than a lower extremity.109 This is also noted in a few medical and other sources.110

In the account in John, Jesus was already discovered to be dead, presumably indicated by his low position hanging on the cross. Therefore, a Roman spear thrust in the upper chest area was quite apparently applied for the purpose of making absolutely sure that Jesus had expired. Quintilian, a first-century AD Roman rhetorician, states in Latin, “Cruces succiduntur, percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat,” which Licona translates as: “As for those who die on the cross, the executioner does not forbid the burying of those who have been pierced.”111

In addition to the other texts and indications of such a mortal wound being administered to crucifixion victims, Quintilian’s comment is very important. After the process of crucifixion, the victim’s bodies were struck or pierced and were then allowed burial. Cook explains that the Latin term percussus with reference to execution is usually connected with a final blow or piercing from a sword, axe, or spear. In this sense, “the word’s usage implies that a weapon was employed.”112 Cook also agreed that Quintilian’s reference could serve as possible confirmation of John’s account of Jesus’s postmortem chest wound.

Origen may likewise have had Quintilian’s statement in mind, due to his similar language in speaking of piercing the bodies being the “Roman’s custom for those who are crucified.”113 More recent views have been more specific. Speaking of John 19:34, Brown similarly cites Quintilian regarding the Roman practice of piercing bodies to ensure death by crucifixion.114 Referring to the account of Jesus’s death as being “firm enough,” James D. G. Dunn treats seriously both the breaking of the crucifixion victims’ legs as well as the “spear thrust” to Jesus’s chest to ensure his death, as per the ancient attestation.115 After a critical analysis, Légasse adds his view in favor of both the breaking of the ankles as well as the spear wound to ensure Jesus’s death.116 It is significant that in both Quintilian and the Gospel account, the action taken by the Roman soldier was a postmortem blow for the sake of assurance.117

In recent decades, this has been one of the most intriguing aspects of the research. In an effort to arrive at the best understanding of what happened medically during the crucifixion, many well-credentialed medical specialists have weighed in on the relevant issues here and the results have been rather enlightening. Addressing the aspects of the Roman spear wound along with the blood and water mentioned in John, quite a number of potential medical models have been discussed (and usually rejected) in an effort to provide the best medical explanation. For example, Zugibe outlines and then discusses eleven different hypotheses for the positioning and results of the chest wound.118 Wilkinson does the same with seven potential theses, and then considers a few more variations.119 Although he is not a physician himself, Wilcox helpfully illustrates four of the major positions.120

Intriguingly, the medical views on the nature of the chest wound are probably more in agreement here than on other areas of the discussion so far. Actually, without getting into the finer elements of medical specifics, a large group of medical commentators, including many of those listed above, basically divide into two broad camps on this issue, often with crossover tendencies between them. Most researchers think the Roman spear entered through Jesus’s pericardium, the thin sac that surrounds the heart and holds a little watery serum, and then into his heart. A smaller number think the spear first penetrated Jesus’s right lung on the way into the heart, hitting both the lung and the heart. The water reported by John could have come from the right lung or from the pericardium, while the blood would have come from the right pleural region and especially from the right atrium of the heart. Incidentally, it is false that dead men do not bleed.121

Before we list these positions, one other prominent view should be mentioned. Another American forensic medical specialist, Anthony Sava, is well-known for hypothesizing that Jesus may have suffered from pleural effusion. He holds that pre-crucifixion scourging was severe enough that it caused severe hemorrhaging in the pleural cavity between the ribs and the lungs. As Sava states: “The bloody fluid collects between the outer surface of the lung and the inner lining of the chest wall.” The buildup of the fluid could even have exerted enough pressure on the lungs to actually compress them and cause or hasten death by asphyxiation. Sava sent a questionnaire to a number of thoracic surgeons, who satisfied him that this was a possible scenario. One of the keys to his hypothesis is that the “haemorrhagic fluid” would settle in the upper cavity in two layers, with the heavier blood cells below and the lighter, serum-like fluid on top. Presumably, this is what John saw when the Roman spear released the blood and water.122

However, while Sava’s view has often been cited as one of the medical possibilities, it has remained somewhat on the periphery of the discussion in recent decades. Many medical researchers have judged that Jesus’s scourging in that region of the body was not serious enough or the sort that would have inflicted these sorts of wounds. Pathologist Bucklin concludes, “There is little evidence of direct trauma applied to the thoracic area. This would seem to refute . . . Sava.”123 Further, Wilkinson thinks that pleural effusion is not supported by the best studies on “the causation of haemothorax or blood in the pleural cavity” and that other factors would have to be present as well.124 Zugibe concludes that the thesis is one of the best; but in the end he believes there is a “strong possibility” that the blood and the watery serum would not remain separated but would be “totally mixed.”125

Sava does not seem to think that the spear entered the heart, but that it stopped inside the right pleural region before being withdrawn. Of the other medical views, some researchers conclude that the spear pierced the lung or pleural space, proceeded through the pericardium, and then into the heart.126 Other physicians only mention the likelihood that the spear entered the pericardium and then the heart.127

For by far the majority of these investigators, the spear wound was inflicted postmortem.128 In this case, Jesus would have been dead when the spear entered his chest. After all, the point with the soldiers not breaking his ankles to hasten death was their observation that death had already happened, and the purpose of the spear wound was specifically to ascertain and demonstrate that very fact. But if Jesus had been alive for any reason, this piercing almost undoubtedly would have killed him. As Bergeron asserts, such a blow “would certainly result in immediate death.”129

Another consideration should be added here. The need in this particular case was to end these crucifixions quickly, before sundown. Being noted in a fairly good number of additional sources (both religious and secular), the process of crurifragium seems to be a solid choice to get the job done. Breaking the legs of the other two men renders Jesus’s spear wound all the more likely. Here is the reason: the soldiers were checking all three men at the same time, severely wounding the other two as they checked on Jesus. Doing something to Jesus’s dead body at the same time just to be sure makes absolute sense because the soldiers purposed to ensure that all three men were dead.130 The soldiers’ own lives may possibly have depended on it, especially during the potentially explosive present Passover situation. So the two instances of crurifragium could also be connected to the coup de grâce in the specific case of Jesus.

A much more crucial observation is that, if by any stretch of the imagination, Jesus had been stabbed in the chest by a Roman spear but it had missed his heart or another vital organ,131 and he remained alive for a time, another exceptionally serious problem would have resulted. As medical examiner Zugibe explains, “If the spear had penetrated the chest and did not strike the heart, a pneumothorax (collapse of the lung) would occur . . . [and] a sucking sound would have been obvious to the centurion and to the individuals who took Jesus down from the cross if he were alive.”132 The sucking sound from inside Jesus’s chest would have alerted those present, even in the first century, that he was certainly still living!

Zugibe relates that he was once called to the scene of a domestic dispute where a man had been stabbed in the chest. Though he was unconscious all the while, “the sucking sound made by air being drawn into the chest through the blood and other body fluids could be heard across the room”!133 This phenomenon is colloquially called “sucking chest.” Here we have yet another of what we might term the many crucifixion checks and balances, indicating that crucifixion victims were indeed dead.

Michael Licona references still another excellent argument concerning Jesus’s crucifixion. Licona states that there “is a very low probability of surviving crucifixion.” Of all our references to this nasty process,134 “only one account exists in antiquity of a person surviving crucifixion.”135 This case has already been described, with the Jewish historian Josephus receiving permission to save three friends by having them removed from their crosses. Roman medical personnel tried to save them, but only one of Josephus’s three friends survived even these interrupted crucifixions.136

Besides Josephus’s account, one story in Herodotus 7.194.1–3 and one more modern crucifixion account in the journal article by John Cheek (each explained earlier) may add to this number, with the likelihood that not a single victim survived a completed crucifixion as far as is known. In other words, the possibility exists that no one ever endured a full-term crucifixion and lived to tell about it. Here’s the chief point: “Thus, even if Jesus had been removed from his cross prematurely and medically assisted, his chances of survival were quite bleak. In addition, no evidence exists that Jesus was removed while alive or that he was provided any medical care whatsoever, much less Rome’s best.”137

The lesson here is that there was a high likelihood of crucifixion ending in death even without the administration of either premortem crucifixion death blows or a postmortem chest or other major wound. Jesus would most likely have died anyway from compound medical causes! So in spite of claimed swoons or apparent deaths, either planned and purposeful or otherwise, critics who suppose that Jesus did not die by crucifixion are counting on just very slight possibilities rather than the historical probabilities. The best historical and medical data regarding death by crucifixion oppose such naturalistic alternative views! Besides, instead of simple “what ifs” and “maybes,” where is the actual evidence to support these rival guesses?

Therefore, we seem to have arrived at an essential conclusion here. Even if medical investigators do not agree unanimously on the precise reason for Jesus’s death on the cross, it probably can be narrowed down to by far the majority view—asphyxiation, perhaps accompanied by lesser complications—as the most likely cause.138 All of these conditions could coexist as part of the multifactorial process mentioned above. In the end, it has been said that the probable case is that, as with most crucifixion victims, these other conditions resulted in Jesus likely suffering a final cardiac arrest.139 Thus, it does seem quite clear from our preceding discussion that, in historical and medical terms, it is quite highly probable that Jesus died due to the rigors of the crucifixion process with the likelihood of the postmortem heart wound having been administered to him.

Historicity of John 19:34

John 19:34 reads, “One of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.” What is the likelihood, as some commentators have thought, that this text in John should not be taken as either literally or historically true? What are some of the considerations for and against this charge?

Arguing that the author meant these descriptions in other than historical terms, it is often pointed out that John alone describes these events without any backup attestation from other canonical Gospel texts. After all, if the other Gospel authors had known of these things, surely they would have recorded such momentous events in their own texts, such as the soldiers breaking the legs of the men on each side of Jesus, the Roman agreement that Jesus was in fact dead, and the subsequent spear wound in Jesus’s side along with the report of the blood and water coming from his body.

Further, another reason for doubting that John was attempting to relate a straightforward historical account here according to some is that the author was in awe of the whole spectacle, as if he thought there was some sort of mystical significance involved. (This is especially the case when we remember John’s interest throughout his Gospel in the use of water as a symbol.)140 Of further note is John’s subsequent statement to his readers explaining that two prophecies were fulfilled when the Roman soldiers did not break Jesus’s legs and when his side was pierced (John 19:36–37). These aspects have caused some to wonder about John’s real purpose in recording these things.

Up front, these objections are far from determinative. For starters, the initial question regarding John being the only source for the crurifragium and the spear wound is obviously an argument from silence, which is anything but a firm foundation upon which to begin a debate! That no other canonical Gospel author mentions these events is less than convincing.141 If we were reminded of how many key events in the Gospels are only recorded in one of the four books, things might look a little different here.

For instance, just sticking to the trial and crucifixion accounts alone, there are some surprises. Most Christians probably have a detailed picture in their minds about the beating which Jesus underwent at the hands of the Roman soldiers before his crucifixion. We could probably list all sorts of details. We could visualize the horrible events! However, the Gospels are virtually silent on this subject—there are only a very few total verses in the four Gospels combined with very few details shared between them!

Why were the authors seemingly not very interested in writing about Jesus’s scourging, especially when we learn just a little later that Jesus was apparently so beat up and worn out that he needed help carrying the crossbeam ( patibulum)? This seems strange, especially for later ministry applications to our following Jesus in his suffering.142 But it makes more sense if we realize the potential historical reasons for this.143 At any rate, it appears that the pictures in our minds may be based more on the movies than on the Gospel texts themselves! And depending on how we count, it is John who arguably says more about Jesus’s mistreatment by the Romans than any other Gospel writer, as in the example that we are considering above!

Another instance is that all four Gospels together say hardly a word about the nails used to affix Jesus to his cross! Not a single Gospel even mentions during the crucifixion accounts that Jesus was nailed to the wood! We only know from the resurrection appearance accounts in Luke 24:39 and John 20:20, 27 that Jesus even had wounds in his hands and feet. And, once again, it is only John who specifically mentions the nails at all (John 20:25)! But surely many readers would presume that the nails were worth mentioning. At least Jesus was still alive when that happened! But surprise, they are not mentioned by other Gospel authors except John, the same author who has been questioned for being the only one to tell us about the broken leg bones and the postmortem spear wound.144

What about the second charge—that John seems so interested in the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and might have thought these events carried such a special or even mystical meaning here that perhaps this was what really engrossed him as opposed to the writing of history? What is worse, maybe he was so caught up in the potential hidden meaning of the occurrences that he simply invented the story line!

However, does coloring an event in a particular way mean the event in question actually never happened at all? Even if that could be the case, does it automatically mean that it was in fact what happened? The author in this instance was Jewish, so should we be surprised if he is very interested in pointing out that the Old Testament is both true and relevant?145 Or to change the situation here, for a huge sports fan today, if their team just won the Super Bowl and they used that opportunity to brag about their team’s place in sports history, even attempting to tell the world that their team is the very best that ever played the game, does that interpretation invalidate the very real game that was just played? Did they not, in fact, just win the biggest game of the year?

The point so far is that these objections regarding John’s account are quite far from showing that crurifragium and the spear wound to ensure Jesus’s death never occurred, whether or not John was the only one to record these events. Neither one gets close to showing that John was probably inaccurate. But perhaps this is not the best way to go about it. What if we look at it from the other way around? Are there actually any positive reasons for concluding that John really did record real historical events? That appears to be the central question at hand.

We will briefly propose four interrelated considerations which indicate that John probably described correctly the two cases of crurifragium and the spear wound to Jesus’s body. First and most noticeably, the immediate, surrounding context of the spear wound pertains to the historical report of the crurifragium being administered to the other two crucifixion victims (see the above discussion), a process that has been confirmed by several other sources.146 Given that straightforward report, it makes sense that the spear wound is likewise a historical event. Breaking the ankles fits coherently with John’s follow-up reference to the spear wound. They were both practices, one premortem and the other postmortem, where the entire point was meant to ensure that no one got down off a cross alive, which was a known concern for the Roman soldiers. In other words, if lethal blows had been dealt to the other two initial victims, then it would follow that an equally vicious, confirmatory postmortem blow was administered to the third as well, for he would hardly have been simply ignored.

Second, an even more crucial indication is that in addition to the list of sources in support of crurifragium directly above, a wound from a weapon (as well as other forms of coup de grâce for crucifixion victims) is also confirmed from several other additional and independent ancient sources.147 This automatically places John’s comments pertaining to Jesus’s chest wound within a multiply attested framework.

Third, even without ancient precedent for both breaking the ankles as well as the spear wound, the entire scenario simply makes excellent sense.148 Seen either from the viewpoint of the Roman soldiers who took their jobs very seriously or that of the Jewish leaders who were present at the event and wanted to be doubly positive that they would never again have to put up with the Galilean preacher, these moves both just appear quite normal. Actually, the situation required some kind of assurance for these groups before they left the scene. Each set of adversaries simply wanted to be totally positive. Given that Jesus had been tried and crucified, not to ensure this event to the bitter end could have been an absolute fiasco. The fact that everything that can be ascertained from John’s account, including the medical details, “checks out” and makes good sense is yet another reason that tips the scales toward trusting the account.149

Fourth, as Brown also remarks, the statement in John 19:35 purporting to be from an eyewitness ought not to be taken lightly. It is “a serious argument” standing against the assumption that John may simply have invented the whole thing for his own theological reasons. Of course, the author could simply have added this for effect, but it has more of the appearance of someone who was indeed very impressed by the events and just wanted to mention that the account came with robust credentials. Therefore, Brown states that it is “more plausible” than not to decide for historicity for this scenario.150

One other question: It is mentioned often that the Greek word used here in John 19:34 (nyssein) may mean either a mere prodding to see if Jesus was really dead, or a much more serious spear thrust to ensure it. The word has been used both ways. Assuming, then, that John did mean this as a literal report, which did he consider to be the more accurate description?

The context itself strongly favors the latter option of the severe thrust, for the author is the one who reports the results of the blood and water coming from the wound. Therefore, it does not appear that he meant the action as a simple poke. Further, as Wilkinson notes, in the next chapter when Thomas demands to place his hand “into” Jesus’s side wound and Jesus responds by telling Thomas to go ahead and place his hand “into” his side, this is ample indication that the author thought that the wound made by the spear was large enough to accommodate Thomas’s request.151 So there can be little question that a more serious spear thrust was intended by the author.152

In the end, we agree with James D. G. Dunn’s summary comment on the matter: “John’s account of the final phase (John 19.31–37) is refracted through a theological prism (19.36–37), though attributed to an eyewitness (19.35), but both the practice of breaking the legs of a crucified man (to hasten his death) and that of a spear thrust to ensure death are attested for the period.”153 So as discussed above and as Dunn clearly agrees, the theological overtones in this passage hardly indicate the events could not have occurred!

Similarly, after a detailed study of this entire passage in John, and while also noting the obvious theological overtones, Raymond Brown still concludes, after all these things are considered, that the information favors the historicity of the report of crurifragium and the spear wound. Without much doubt, this conclusion in large part is due to the ancient parallels for both the breaking of the legs as well as the spear wound.154

Lastly, skeptical classical scholar Duncan Derrett, whose 1982 book argued that the resurrection of Jesus did not occur, still concedes that John’s account here is probably historical. The reason for his conclusion is that “jabbing was indeed a Roman practice.” Derrett’s endnote lists several ancient sources for this last comment.155

Wilkerson began the first sentence in his essay on the subject of the Roman postmortem spear wound to Jesus’s body with this assertion “There is no doubt that John intended his record of the spear thrust which produced blood and water from our Lord’s side to be taken as historical fact.”156 We have observed some of the strong grounds here for concluding, both historically as well as medically, that John was correct in his conviction that this event really happened. There is one additional consideration to mention just briefly before moving onward.

The Death of Jesus by Crucifixion: A Final Argument

Since the First Quest for the historical Jesus in the nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, the argument that has perhaps convinced more scholars of the reality of Jesus’s death by crucifixion than any other has not been addressed so far in this chapter. While it does have some strong medical implications, it is perhaps better considered to be a logical or historical argument. But because it will be looked at in more detail later in this study when commenting on the naturalist “swoon” or “apparent death” theory of the resurrection, here we only want to outline the argument briefly as it relates to the subject of this chapter—the death of Jesus by crucifixion.

David F. Strauss (1808–1874) was a fierce critic of conservative Christianity. He was one of most liberal theologians of his time and denied the resurrection of Jesus. But he also opposed simplistic rational arguments. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was popularly taught that Jesus had only apparently died on the cross but escaped death. Could Jesus have been taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb while he was still alive and then have recovered later? Strauss thought this was an exceptionally weak hypothesis.

On medical grounds alone, Strauss stated that Jesus’s chances were not good. Among the many difficulties with this alternative view, Strauss thought that one principal weaknesses of the swoon hypothesis was how the Christian church could have been born based on this starting point. Strauss states that “this view . . . does not even solve the problem which is here under consideration—the origin, that is, of the Christian Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the Messiah.” Continuing, Strauss immediately leveled his now infamous, elegantly worded, bombshell critique:

It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life. . . . Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death . . . but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.157

Basically, Strauss’s critique, made well over a century ago, has been one of the chief reasons persuading even recent scholars that the apparent death theory is inaccurate and wrongheaded. In the process it has actually become a major reason to know the opposite: that Jesus died actually by crucifixion. Here is one angle from which to analyze and assess Strauss’s response: even if Jesus had successfully escaped this Roman death, which was highly unlikely in itself, this would not account for his disciples’ transforming belief in his resurrection, a faith that even skeptical scholars virtually always recognize without question to be historical.158 And if an apparent death by crucifixion cannot explain the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s victory over death, then the former view fails.

The reason for this is rather straightforward: a recently beaten and crucified but still barely living Jesus would without question have been in absolutely horrible physical shape, and all precisely because he had survived such a death. He had been scourged viciously, had been suspended for hours on nails, had been bloodied from wounds that had now broken open again, had walked some distance on incredibly wounded feet, and was sickly looking, bent over and limping badly, disheveled, and in obvious need of immediate medical assistance!159

Strauss’s argument is that such a condition obviously would have contradicted the disciples’ belief that Jesus had appeared to them again in a newly revitalized, resurrected body! Faith in the resurrection was clearly what provided the vitality and direction for the new movement. Jesus’s resurrection was the center of the earliest believers’ faith. And someday believers also would have a new body too, just like Jesus’s body!

True, by living through the crucifixion, Jesus would have been very lucky to be alive, and his disciples might even have treated his escape as an answer to prayer. But as they and the women gently, tenderly, and thoroughly treated his incredible pain and nursed him back to health again, there was one thing that they could be absolutely sure of: he was alive, barely, but he had definitely not been raised from the dead in a newly reenergized body! Additionally, the frequently repeated New Testament teaching that believers would someday be raised just like Jesus would be seen for what it was: absolutely groundless, as Paul was to say later in 1 Cor 15:12–19. Such a sickly body would hardly be an inspiration for Christian theology!

Actually, Strauss’s critique was brilliant. We will have much more to say about this later. It is what we might term a “you cannot get there from here” argument. Even in the nineteenth century, just like the situation today, scholars recognized that without the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s resurrection, there would have been absolutely no Christian faith.160 This faith was as solid as any historical fact in Christianity, as virtually all critical scholars freely acknowledged both in Strauss’s day as well as today. But by hypothesizing that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, this belief would have been more than severely undermined. It would have been absolutely destroyed. Yes, this sort of Jesus would still have survived the cross. But he would hardly have been a candidate for resurrection. As such, he would have provided no inspiration for either his or the believers’ resurrection either.

Strauss raised the challenge as to how such theses of Jesus’s avoiding death could have given rise to the critically well-recognized exuberance of Jesus’s followers that he had risen triumphantly from the dead. Even skeptical scholars understood the chief thrust of Strauss’s argument and perceived the horns of the dilemma: Jesus’s purported lack of death and the disciples’ transformative experiences could not coexist very well—one view or the other needed to be jettisoned. The historical result of Strauss’s critique was that the supposition of Jesus’s apparent death, which was the most popular critical response at that time, fell by the wayside. After Strauss’s critique, Albert Schweitzer listed no more proponents of the swoon theory during the remainder of the century, even during the heyday of these natural responses.161

If Jesus had survived the cross, perhaps his teachings would still have lived on in some other form, but not with the resurrection of Jesus precisely at the epicenter of its belief. But since the early Christian faith of his disciples did indeed rest precisely on the resurrection of Jesus, and along with it, the believer’s resurrection as well, it can only be concluded that Jesus must have died due to the rigors of crucifixion! Alternative ways to arrive at an assessment that makes both sides of the dilemma compatible were tried and rejected as highly improbable.

Conclusion: Checklist

Proceeding from this discussion, the case for Jesus’s physical death by crucifixion is exceptionally strong, even focusing just on the twelve high points. (1) We began with several species of multiply and independently attested historical reports (including about a dozen to more than twenty independent Christian and non-Christian sources, depending on how these are enumerated). (2) Data from the very earliest teaching (homologia) after the crucifixion corroborates the historicity of Jesus’s death. This early aspect is accented even further in that this teaching was formalized in the pre-Pauline creedal traditions. Additionally, (3) the eyewitness testimony strengthens the case considerably. Other criteria continue to contribute to the information favoring Jesus’s death by crucifixion, including the force of (4) the principle of dissimilarity, (5) at least three examples of embarrassment, (6) four types of enemy attestation, (7) multiple forms (such as narrative, epistle, parable, apocalyptic), and (8) events that cohere or fit within a historical context. This amount of historical attestation is exceptionally weighty.

Next, (9) medical researchers added their scientific knowledge, with several even conducting experiments on both volunteers as well as cadavers to better understand death by crucifixion. The results of a recent tabulation of more than forty medical studies found that asphyxiation was favored by researchers approximately 2:1 over all the other options combined as the cause of death on a cross.162 However, determining the cause of death is not as crucial as the fact of Jesus’s death itself.

Moreover, (10) several ancient sources indicate that a postmortem wound from a Roman spear probably pierced vital organs on its way into Jesus’s chest and probably into his heart, thereby ensuring his death. Research shows that these postmortem piercings from spears, axes, or swords were a common Roman procedure.

What we referred to as (11) Strauss’s critique is a devastating insight of its own, as even liberal commentators over a number of decades have concluded ever since. Given the exceptional amount of information in support of the disciples’ acknowledged exuberance after they thought that they had seen Jesus alive after his demise, it has been deemed highly unlikely that Jesus appeared to the disciples in a deathly state after having gotten off of the cross alive, especially when there is no record of anyone escaping death from a full-term crucifixion anyway.

(12) Lastly, it will simply be mentioned briefly that if the Shroud of Turin turns out to be an authentic burial garment of a crucifixion victim,163 and if the best arguments favor the man buried in it being Jesus,164 then another fact would be relevant here: there are several major medical indications that the victim buried in the shroud was certainly dead.165

The Shroud of Turin is often denigrated by biblical scholars, but at least a portion of this criticism could be generated by rather second-order questions concerning Christian relics, enthusiasm from nonscientific or other sources, a lack of analysis, and the like. At least two items should be noted here. Initially, several very influential critical scholars have at least been open to the scientific results on this artifact, including, notably, John A. T. Robinson’s perhaps surprising positive verdict,166 Gerald O’Collins’s optimistic treatment,167 and even Raymond Brown’s generally encouraging agnosticism.168 Further, the chief question here ultimately concerns the data itself, which requires an investigation rather than a priori dismissals.

These twelve different arguments are not exhaustive. Further, they can yield many additional considerations according to the purposes of the individual researcher. For example, the figure of twelve to twenty sources in the initial point could be understandably tallied in several ways. This configuration of twelve arguments (with its additional considerations being grouped together) fits our purposes in this chapter.

Due to all of these avenues, the abundant wealth of information from almost a dozen separate historical indications from those who specialize in these and related areas has shed a great amount of light on these subjects, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Further, medical knowledge from pathologists, forensic specialists, and others, especially those who by profession are medical examiners and surgeons, have offered an incredible amount of modern scientific knowledge regarding how people may have died on a cross, favoring the verdict of asphyxiation. The additional insights concerning a coup de grâce in the form of a Roman lance were also incredibly helpful, especially where large amounts of medical agreement were reached. But among current critical scholars, it may be that Strauss’s critique has made the largest impact. Together, the distinct historical and medical insights total about twelve arguments plus additional considerations as may be counted by other researchers, all attesting to the reality of Jesus’s death.

The death of Jesus Christ is a foundational event in the Christian gospel proclamation. In New Testament definitions of the factual side of the gospel, the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus are regularly present.169 Moreover, Jesus’s death is obviously a precursor to any consideration of his resurrection.

The overall evidence here might even be judged to be overkill, given the already overwhelming acceptance of this fact even by very skeptical specialists, as shown in this chapter by the comments of the foremost critical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg, all of whom agree and acknowledge that the factual case for Jesus’s death by crucifixion is absolutely solid. In the next chapter, we will analyze the contemporary critical attitudes toward the death of Jesus.

Notes

1 Ehrman, New Testament, 233 (see chap. 4, n. 34). It should be noted at the outset that in the initial section of this chapter, we will make much use of Bart Ehrman’s work. There are several reasons for doing so, among them being Ehrman’s regular statements regarding his personal outlook, such as: “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 5 (see chap. 2, n. 15). With regard to his theological beliefs, Ehrman identifies himself as an atheist in “On Being an Agnostic. Or Atheist?,” The Bart Ehrman Blog, May 23, 2021, https://ehrmanpodcast.libsyn.com/on-being-an-agnostic-or-atheist-the-message-of-jesus. Further, Ehrman adds, “The only thing I attack in my writings . . . is a fundamentalist and conservative evangelical understanding of Christianity.” This last statement is also from Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?, 35, with similar comments being made on 36–37, 71, 94–95, 143. Given statements such as these, Ehrman can hardly be regarded as a scholar whose views are slanted toward Christianity. He concedes a number of items, probably because that is where he thinks the evidence honestly lies in those areas. In those cases, he quite often makes the positive comment without excuses. Yet, it is likewise more than clear that he also has huge disagreements with Christianity in several major areas, such as the overall reliability of Scripture and the Gospels in particular, the deity of Jesus Christ, as well as the historicity of Christian miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, when disagreements arise with his theses in these crucial areas as addressed in these works, he states this as well. But Ehrman is generally quite fair in his evaluations. Moreover, critical researchers often tend to gloss over supernatural details of interest to Christians with only a slight tip of the hat, whereas Ehrman is one of the few scholars whose recent writings interact seriously with a plethora of specifics in what might be termed the more extraordinary occurrences attached to the life of Jesus, according to the New Testament. Further, he is a specialist in the New Testament, with excellent training, and works precisely in many of the subjects that we wish to discuss here. Perhaps most of all in terms of my overall minimal facts methodology utilized throughout this work, Ehrman’s evaluations are exceptionally helpful in establishing where critical scholars agree regarding the historical data, and far more importantly, providing many of the reasons why they think they need to agree in those areas.

2 Elsewhere, Ehrman uses other arguments for this event too.

3 Granted, multiple early attestation is major, contributing to the excellent data here, and reaching the “almost universally attested” plateau is due to this in addition to other evidence; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163.

4 It is crucial to note here that for those interested in individual arguments for these historical facts, the categories below are arranged according to the type of evidence that is being considered, rather than by representing separate arguments. Usually, there are multiple lines of evidence within each of the categories.

5 Of these more than twenty sources for the life of Jesus, eight of them (more than one-third) are non-New Testament, including a few non-Christian texts. See Ehrman, 56, 74–78, 92–93, 140–41, 261–63 for examples.

6 Ehrman, 163, 291–92, 327–31, to name just a few instances.

7 Ehrman’s period of 100 years after an event in the ancient world is quite a fair time frame, though some scholars may allow a little longer period beyond that. In one of my own studies of the historical Jesus, sources from approximately 150 years were counted as the period of demarcation. See Habermas, Historical Jesus, chap. 9 for these “Ancient Non-Christian Sources” (see chap. 3, n. 48).

8 The ten New Testament sources are Mark, M, L, John, the early speeches in the book of Acts, Paul’s Epistles (counting as one author), 1 Timothy (Ehrman rejects Pauline authorship for this book), 1 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation.

9 The five non-New Testament sources are the writings of Josephus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tacitus, and the Gospel of Peter. Ehrman dates the Gospel of Peter as one of the latest texts at the end of this 100-year period after the crucifixion (76–78).

10 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 98–105, 163, 291. Ehrman repeats the list more than once, with slight variations. The sources above are drawn from the combined accounts.

11 Examples include Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 97, 132, 141, 290–91. On the traditions behind the Gospels, see Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. chap. 8 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 13, 18 in particular (see chap. 4, n. 45).

12 While much older, two of the very best, groundbreaking works here are Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22). Two slightly later, excellent studies on these subjects are Vernon H. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22) and the specialized study from Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).

13 Cullmann agrees here: “Accordingly we can conclude that the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and His elevation to the dignity of Kyrios, as consequence of His death and resurrection, are the two essential elements in the majority of the confessions of the first century.” See Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 57.

14 For our purposes, the most crucial pre-Pauline creedal statement is undoubtedly 1 Cor 15:3–7. Other major instances receiving much scholarly attention in recent years include 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23–25; Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9–10; Phil 2:6–11; 1 Tim 2:6; and 1 Pet 3:18. The speech summaries in Acts include especially 2:22–36; 3:13–16; 4:8–10; 5:29–32; 10:39–43; 13:28–31; and perhaps 17:30–31. On the entire subject, but especially the texts in Acts, see especially Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31. Each example above mentions the death or the resurrection of Jesus, and usually both, with the exception of only 1 Cor 8:6, even though they provide only a few details each. It should also be noted carefully that while these creedal texts certainly introduce further examples of criteria such as multiple attestation, we will also cite them below as early texts, which they certainly are, as well as potentially being eyewitness testimony of a more general nature, though this last possibility is more difficult to determine. See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21. The last point here is that the same passage can provide more than one species of confirmation. This tendency has also been indicated by Ehrman (as will be pointed out in our later treatment of the creeds). John Meier is another scholar who has shown a slightly different angle on how a particular passage may yield several instances of criteria being manifested, as in his work Marginal Jew, 3:433–444 in particular (see chap. 1, n. 27). A noncreedal example might be the frequently cited comments that the female testimony to the facticity of the empty tomb in Mark 16:1–8 indicates multiply attested, embarrassing, and potentially early data, all at the same time. Or again, the resurrection appearance reported by Paul in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8 is at once multiply attested, reported early by an eyewitness, as well as consisting of enemy testimony, at least at the time it happened.

15 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, see particularly 18–34.

16 For the reference numbering here, J. B. Lightfoot’s edition of The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. R. Harmer (1891; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971) is being cited. See also the updated scholarly version edited and translated by Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). Ehrman argues that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and also Papias are all independent sources that are “especially significant”; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 98–105, quotation on 98. These three writers are all quite early, with Clement of Rome usually being dated at about AD 90–97, Ignatius at about 107, and Papias at about 125, although Papias’s fragments (also found in Lightfoot) do not help us on the death of Jesus, whereas they are invaluable elsewhere. If we include Polycarp at about AD 110, this would add an additional source to the count. On these dates, Helmut Koester is helpful in his Introduction to the New Testament, 2:3, 57–58, 145, 288, 306 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Even the Epistle of Barnabas (esp. 5) is possibly helpful here and should not be ruled out, most likely also falling within our date range as well. Koester thinks that a late first-century date for the Epistle of Barnabas is quite possible (2.277). A concern heard periodically regarding the texts of these apostolic fathers is that they might not be completely independent sources, in that they seem to draw heavily from the four canonical Gospels and Paul’s Epistles. This may be true enough, though Ehrman disagrees. Did Jesus Exist?, 98–105, esp. 98, 103, 105. However, to be fair, other second-century sources would also have to be evaluated by these same standards, including the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the gnostic works cited just below. In fact, the gnostic sources might not even fare as well, in that they are later and could more easily make use of the canonical Gospels. But like the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, some of these apostolic fathers also provide additional information that probably is not reflected in the canonical sources, indicating some level of independence. This might include many aspects of the early church, such as the sufferings and probably the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in 1 Clem. 5 and Polycarp Phil. 9, Ignatius’s own coming martyrdom (Ign. Rom. 5; Smyrn. 4), as well as the suffering and martyrdom of others (Pol. Phil. 9), and offices and officers in the church (Ign. Trall. 2–3, 13). Nonetheless, the bottom line is that we have only mentioned these authors briefly, adding the suggestion that Polycarp be added in this category here. Still, we will not base any specific arguments on their assertions.

17 But even with as many of the independent New Testament creeds as we can meaningfully enumerate, plus possibly adding Polycarp, a few new references may need to be added to the list of ancient sources for Jesus’s death. Some researchers also might be inclined to count both Papias and the Epistle of Barnabas here too, but we will not push for that possibility.

18 That is, with the likelihood of a few emendations. Influential scholar James H. Charlesworth sums the matter with some surprisingly strong words: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus” and that the Jewish historian thereby produced “corroboration of the gospel accounts.” See Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 96–97 (see chap. 6, n. 70).

19 These additional noncanonical texts could then include the Talmud, Lucian, Thallus, the Gospel of Truth, Treatise on Resurrection, Justin Martyr, Celsus, and Irenaeus.

20 For details on many of the sources discussed here and much additional information, see Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament (see chap. 6, n. 3); Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins (see chap. 6, n. 3); Habermas, Historical Jesus, esp. chap. 9 (see chap. 3, n. 48).

21 Once again, this is largely for the purposes of simply producing a count of potential sources by certain cutoff dates, working in our first category of multiple attestation. The goal is by no means to somehow try and surpass Ehrman’s total sources! Plus, he cut off his count at AD 130, as mentioned. Nor does Ehrman even report that this is his maximum count. Moreover, for my own purposes, I have already remarked more than once that I will not be using any of the second-century sources for any of the central claims made in this study. So possibly, perhaps we should even think here of a two-tiered demarcation of sources for Jesus’s death: the earlier “A-1” texts and the somewhat later but still potentially helpful (in terms of ancient historiographical research) “A-2” texts. After all, I am still moving forward with a minimal facts methodology, and so even individual texts beyond Paul’s list of “authentic” epistles need to either be established or at least have decent reasons to consider each one on a piecemeal basis, as in the illustration of building a brick wall.

22 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

23 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 26 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

24 This is another example of our earlier comment that critical scholars do not object to quoting New Testament sources as good data as long as the sources are being used critically. Further, it was said that if conservative scholars did not quote from the New Testament, then the specialist critics would still do so. Again we see that these specialists are indeed willing to do so, regardless of how skeptical they may be, while it tends to be some of the writers without the scholarly credentials, and especially the popular bloggers and commentators, who object to this practice. Unless this principle is kept firmly in mind, our comments throughout may look hopelessly biased to some readers, but then again, they may well react to the critical scholars like Ehrman as well, especially since he has criticized them thoroughly and for many reasons, as noted! But the chief problem here would be that such a mindset may be sure to miss some of the strongest considerations drawn from recent scholarship, as with the exceptionally positive approach taken with regard to the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7.

25 Again, the point is definitely not the sheer number of sources alone, and that will not impinge specifically in terms of our study here. The quality of the sources is the major consideration. However, there are still a very surprising number of critically ascertained sources for Jesus’s crucifixion.

26 When comparing Jesus to other prominent persons in antiquity, ancient historian Paul Barnett refers to the small gap from Jesus to the earliest sources as “a brevity without equal.” Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, After Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1:210.

27 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 25–26.

28 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 26 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

29 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92; cf. also 141.

30 Besides Ehrman and others, Lüdemann provides another influential testimony from a prominent critical scholar with regard to 1 Cor 15:3–5 in Resurrection of Jesus, 25, 38, 118, 202, endnote 165.

31 As a reminder, we are specifically addressing here the earliness of Jesus’s crucifixion traditions. When we develop the case in more detail later, as just mentioned above, it will be with more specific reference to Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

32 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 164, 251. One of the most crucial distinctions of all to be made here as well as throughout this entire study is that it is not the creedal traditions and their dates per se that are absolutely the keys at this juncture, but rather the content of these teachings being communicated within and through these more formal expressions. In other words, the most vital element in this discussion is not to identify the creedal dates as if they are an end in themselves, but to know the earliest proclamation that was being emphasized within them. As Oscar Cullmann points out in note 13 of this chapter, the message of the lordship, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the very center of the earliest Christian proclamation and makes up the bulk of these more formal statements. If the creedal traditions were the best and earliest way to identify this message, then so be it. But the documentation of the earliest message is more crucial than the exact dates of the oral vehicles that carried that message. Thus, dating the original teaching, along with who taught these items and related features such as the circumstances, is foremost here. Much like Cullmann, Larry Hurtado asserts quite similarly that based on the early data available, devotion to Jesus Christ in light of his crucifixion and resurrection “had installed him in heavenly glory,” and this message was being proclaimed just days after Jesus’s execution, in “the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians.” See Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 4, 30, 36, cf. 48, 192. The first quotation is found on 4 and the second quotation on 36. Lüdemann is also very helpful when he states that the “appearances of Jesus were talked about immediately after they happened.” Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38. These were the earliest conclusions from the most crucial data to which we refer here. The nature of this information that Cullmann, Hurtado, and Lüdemann (along with the majority of other researchers) are addressing is discussed and evaluated in detail in later chapters of this volume.

33 For the crucifixion, see Matt 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; Luke 23:27–31, 49; John 19:25–27. For Jesus’s burial, see Matt 27:61; Mark 15:47; 16:1–3; Luke 23:55–56; 24:1. Strangely enough, the only exception is the Johannine burial account, which does not mention the presence of the women while Jesus’s body was being interred. However, there is a fairly strong implication that Mary Magdalene along with the other women knew where they were heading in the dark and so they at least knew where the tomb was located (John 24:1–2).

34 Matt 27:57–60; Mark 15:43–46; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38–42.

35 See N. T. Wright, The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). Although no more than a possibility, the news that many Jewish priests had become believers just a little later (Acts 6:7b) could also have introduced an entirely different set of “insider” data, and from a totally different perspective.

36 Besides what has already been noted here, it should also be added that both Joseph of Arimathea’s involvement plus the disciples’ trip to the tomb are both multiply attested in the sources.

37 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71, 308.

38 For example, Paul, Peter, and James are all present in the Acts 15 account as well (though John is not mentioned, as he was in Gal 2:9). According to Acts, there were many other times, especially in the earlier chapters, when multiple apostles were together and had opportunities to share with each other. For a number of these instances, see Acts 1:13–14, 15–26; 2:1, 42–47; 3:1; 4:23–33; 5:18–19, 41–42; 8:1, 14; 9:26–30; 11:25–26; 21:17–20. For further details regarding some of the relevant questions in these texts, see Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012) and Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 3:1 to 14:28 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013). Cf. Keener’s briefer remarks in his volume Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (see chap. 4, n. 43), such as 115–20, 358–75. In this later Cambridge volume, Keener attests that the majority of scholars hold that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 probably describe the same event; see 358–62.

39 Such as Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 2–14. As an example, see 243 on a pre-Markan passion narrative. Cf. Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1492–524 (see chap. 4, n. 40).

40 Actually, before even commenting on multiple attestation or dissimilarity, the first of Ehrman’s three criteria for establishing traditions that are probably authentic is what he terms “Contextual Credibility.” It seems to be a bit of a cross between coherence or consistency with a little Aramaic flavor added to the mix. For Ehrman, before we even begin, we need to ascertain that a particular tradition is one that actually could happen or “fit into a first-century Palestinian context” or else it will probably have to be discounted. But Ehrman announces that “the crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is, of course, contextually credible. The Romans crucified lots of people all the time” (291). For Ehrman, if a tradition concerning Jesus passes this initial test, then it is only possibly historical, but that does not automatically make it probable. To arrive at the conclusion of probability, he adds, we must move on to the next two criteria: “And a tradition is even more probable if it can pass not just one but both of them” (290). But we have already seen above the incredibly strong conclusion with multiple attestation, and we are considering the positive case for dissimilarity here. The evaluation of this initial criterion is from Did Jesus Exist?, 288–91. Notice too, Ehrman’s research steps here from possible, to probable, to “even more probable.” This is a good example of how the data can cause the likelihood of events to grow.

41 In 2008 an account of an archaeological find captivated the popular religious news for a brief period of time. According to some, an ancient, enigmatic writing on a stone suggested the existence of a little-known view. It could have been the case that a minority of Jews roughly from just before Jesus’s time did indeed hold a view of a messiah who dies and is then raised from the dead. Called “Gabriel’s Revelation” or “Gabriel’s Vision” because the speaker is identified as Gabriel, the writing is thought to date from the end of the first-century BC or perhaps a little later. One Jewish scholar who favors this general scenario is Israel Knohl, “‘By Three Days, Live’: Messiahs, Resurrection, and Ascent to Heaven,” in Hazon Gabriel, Journal of Religion 88 (2008): 150–58. There are some tough problems here, including some particularly difficult deciphering issues largely due to deletions in the text. Scholars very seldom try to employ this find either to support or to challenge existing positions on a small number of relevant issues. Without much question, however, the majority position among critical scholars is still the one favored by Ehrman above, that the Jews really did not conceive of a messiah who would die and afterwards rise again. In a few essays, I have argued that the positive points involved with Gabriel’s Vision easily outweigh any negative concerns. For instance see Gary R. Habermas, “Does ‘Gabriel’s Revelation’ Challenge the Resurrection of Jesus?,” Union Biblical Seminary Journal (India) 6 (2009): 1–13. A very brief synopsis of a few issues and questions was posted in a popular essay; see Habermas, “‘Gabriel’s Vision’ and the Resurrection of Jesus,” www.garyhabermas.com, July 2008, http://garyhabermas.com/articles/gabrielsvision1/gabrielsvision.htm.

42 This entire discussion is found in Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291–92.

43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 292. Elsewhere, Ehrman summarizes it this way: “Since no one would have made up the idea of a crucified messiah, Jesus must really have existed, must really have raised messianic expectations, and must really have been crucified. No Jew would have invented him” (164).

44 For details, see Hengel, Crucifixion, 1–3, 10, 89–90 (see chap. 6, n. 57).

45 While John does not report this aspect, the women knew where Jesus was buried (John 20:1–2), and it is at least possible that they were present during the burial, though unmentioned. Of course, this is a weaker argument than the previous case regarding the women’s testimony pertaining to Jesus’s crucifixion and death.

46 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61 (see chap. 2, n. 32).

47 These attested reports of taunting are found in Mark 15:29–32; Matt 27:39–43; Luke 23:35, 48; John 19:21–22, 31. Interestingly, the Gospel of Peter reports that the Jewish leaders rejoiced that the ordeal was over and gave Jesus’s dead body to Joseph (6:22; cf. 7:25).

48 These reports are also multiply attested, being recorded in Matt 27:27–37, 54; Mark 15:15–26, 39, 44–45; Luke 23:26, 34, 36–38, 47–48; John 19:16–19, 23–24, 32–34; Gos. Pet. 7:31–32; 11:43–49.

49 See also John 19:38; Matt 27:58; Luke 23:52.

50 The question of whether Pilate granted a Roman or a Jewish Temple guard (Matt 27:62–66; 28:11–14) is a moot point for our purposes here.

51 Matti Kankaanniemi, The Guards of the Tomb (Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15): Matthew’s Apologetic Legend Revisited (Biskopsgatan: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2010). (The dissertation was written in English.) After an insightful discussion of pro and con arguments, William Lane Craig concludes that the matter should be left as an open issue. See Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 273–81, with this conclusion stated on 273.

52 Josephus, Life 75. Herodotus (7.194.1–3) mentions another crucifixion case where the individual was taken down and released after a reconsideration of his good deeds, perhaps somewhat similarly to Josephus’s friend who also survived after being purposely taken down. In a modern case a crucified man survived briefly after being taken down after the German soldiers who presided over the situation walked away from the scene. It is unclear here if the German soldiers who simply walked away knew that the man was still alive—as if to acknowledge that this punishment was sufficient (as with some German Aufbinden cases). But if the soldiers thought that this individual was truly dead, this would indicate an example of a person escaping the crucifixion process with his lack of death having been overlooked. Since this last crucified man was still killed directly afterward, it is also unknown if he still would have died anyway, as did two of Josephus’s three friends. So the two most crucial questions for our purposes cannot be determined in this latter example. John L. Cheek, “The Historicity of the Markan Resurrection Accounts,” Journal of Bible and Religion 27 (July 1959): 195. At any rate, there are apparently no known examples of a person surviving a fully completed crucifixion, in spite of the thousands of known cases of this capital punishment (see Josephus, Wars 2.5.2; 2.14.9; 5.11.1 on the large numbers of these deaths). Cook also mentions the Herodotus case (“Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World,” 220–21), while Allison mentions both the Herodotus and the German cases (The Resurrection of Jesus, 12n15; 13n19).

53 See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 311–12 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

54 More historical research is intertwined with the medical information below.

55 Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145; cf. 154, 196, 201 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

56 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 179; cf. 178–84.

57 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38.

58 Hengel, Crucifixion; Cook, Crucifixion, 452, see also 216 (see chap. 6, n. 57); Felicity Harley, “Crucifixion in Roman Antiquity: The State of the Field,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 27, no. 2 (2019): 308.

59 Of course, these challenges have been revived somewhat in certain circles today where Muslims have interacted with Christians. Since the Qur’an is usually said to teach that Jesus did not die on the cross during the process of crucifixion (Surah 4:156–58), this has been a standard response by Muslims. However, since the Qur’an has not spelled out the exact way that Jesus’s death was avoided, Muslims have employed more than one supposition as to how the mistake or oversight came about.

60 A very important caution needs to be mentioned here at the outset: among the titles of various sources in this chapter, especially on the nature of crucifixion, it will be obvious that some of these medical investigations have been done in conjunction with studies on the Shroud of Turin, which many well-credentialed researchers think may be the actual burial garment of Jesus. But it needs to be noted very carefully that arguing the medical details of Jesus’s death does not require any particular judgment concerning this archaeological artifact. We have already seen that historical insights on Jesus’s crucifixion have been derived from several directions. The research has in some circles become a medium for some of these medical views to be aired. So be it. But the investigation in this chapter will proceed without a verdict on the nature of this cloth, where differing views have obviously been taken. Though influential scholars such as Joe Zias and James Charlesworth decry the role played by the Shroud of Turin in some crucifixion research, their views also employ several unproven assumptions, such as the shroud not being a genuine archaeological artifact, whether or not it belonged to Jesus, or that research by otherwise competent medical scholars is dependent on their view of the cloth. But this need not be the case. Research on the Shroud of Turin has progressed quite a long way since Zias and Charlesworth’s essay appeared, and of course if the shroud turns out to be genuine, it goes almost without saying that this could totally invalidate at least some of their conclusions. Yet all of this is beside the point. To be clear, questions regarding this cloth arise from time to time here from the researchers being discussed, but no efforts are made to prove or disprove the ultimate provenance of this cloth. See Joe Zias and James H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 281–82 (see chap. 6, n. 164).

61 These medical studies will be listed together here, precisely for the last reason mentioned. It is difficult regarding many of these authors to state or imply that their view is that it was “only” this or that cause of death by itself. For some of these medical studies, see K.-S. Schulte, “Der Tod Jesu in der Sicht der Moderner Medizin,” Berliner Medizin 7 (1963): 177–86, especially for the experimental work of Hermann Mödder in Germany; Matthew W. Maslen and Piers D. Mitchell, “Medical Theories on the Cause of Death in Crucifixion,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99, no. 4 (2006): 185–88; Joseph W. Bergeron, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Medical Doctor Examines the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Suwanee, GA: St. Polycarp, 2018); Bergeron, “The Crucifixion of Jesus: Review of Hypothesized Mechanisms of Death and Implications of Shock and Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy,” Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 30 (2011): 1–4; B. Brenner, “Did Jesus Christ Die of Pulmonary Embolism?,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 3 (2005): 2130–131; P. Bishop and B. Church, “An Alternative Mechanism for Death by Crucifixion,” Linacre Quarterly 73 (2006): 282–89; Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, trans. Earl of Wicklow (New York: Doubleday, 1953), 66, 74–80; Frederick T. Zugibe, The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Examiner Investigates the Crucifixion (Cresskill, NJ: McDonagh, 1981), 136; Anthony Sava, “The Holy Shroud on Trial,” in Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin, ed. Kenneth E. Stevenson (Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 50–57; W. Stroud, Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ and Its Relation to the Principles and Practices of Christianity (London: Hamilton and Adams, 1847), 55; S. Bersgma, “Did Jesus Die of a Broken Heart?,” Calvin Forum 14 (1948): 153–63; S. M. Tenney, “On Death by Crucifixion,” American Heart Journal 68 (1964): 286–87; D. A. Ball, “The Crucifixion and Death of a Man Called Jesus,” Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 30 (1989): 77–83; V. Wright, “Resurrection or Resuscitation?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 269–70; J. V. Warren, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986): 2760. For a popular presentation of Mödder’s crucifixion experiments, including a photograph of one such examination, see Robert K. Wilcox, Shroud (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 23–25, 72–73, 161, with the photograph on 25.

62 The “multifactorial” aspect is cited commonly by these researchers. Instances can be found in the volume by Bergeron, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 4; F. P. Retief and L. Cilliers, “The History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” South African Medical Journal 93 (2003): 938–41, esp. 938, 941; William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986): 1463.

63 Examples include A. LeBec, “The Death of the Cross: A Physiological Study of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” Catholic Medical Guardian 3 (1925): 126–32; J. Whitaker, “The Physical Cause of the Death of Our Lord,” Catholic Medical Guardian 11 (1935): 83–91; R. W. Hynek, Science and the Holy Shroud: An Examination into the Sacred Passion and the Direct Cause of Christ’s Death (Chicago: Benedictine, 1936), 80–85; F. P. Furlong, “Jesus Christ Who Was Crucified,” Linacre Quarterly 19 (1952): 3–6; J. W. Hewitt, “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion,” Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932): 29–45; Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, 74–80; Anthony Sava, “The Wound in the Side of Christ,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (1957): 343–46; Hermann Mödder, “Die Todesurache bei der Kreuzigung,” Stimmen der Zeit 144 (1948): 50–59.

64 Many medical publications have argued for asphyxiation as the major contribution to Jesus’s death, with probably the best-known example being Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1455–63. For an explication and defense of the previous article, including many medical drawings, see Edwin A. Blum, “Jesus and JAMA,” Christian Medical Society Journal 17 (1986): 4–11. Other major works include Robert Bucklin, “The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ,” Medicine, Science and the Law 10, no. 1 (1970): 14–26; Bucklin, “The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist,” Shroud Spectrum International 1, no. 5 (1982): esp. 9; J. E. Holoubek and A. B. Holoubek, “Execution by Crucifixion: History, Methods, and Cause of Death,” Journal of Medicine 26 (1995): 1–16; Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938–41; Christos Papaloucas, “Anatomical, Physiological, and Historical Aspects of the Crucifixion and Death of Jesus,” Catholic Medical Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2004): 1–9; T. Eduard, A. Al-Turki, and T. Andrey, “Death by Crucifixion: View of the Medicolegal Expert,” Journal of Forensic Science 2 (2017): 555–90; N. P. DePasquale and G. E. Burch, “Death by Crucifixion,” American Heart Journal 66 (1963): 434–35; Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” esp. 26 (see chap. 6, n. 164); R. Lumpkin, “The Physical Suffering of Christ,” Journal of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama 47 (1978): 8–10. Other scholars hold positions like the multifactorial view mentioned above, with asphyxiation as the chief contributor to death. An example is Mödder’s view, which is somewhat nuanced, but see Schulte, “Der Tod Jesu,” Berliner Medizin, vol. 7 (1963), 177–86; Barbet has some similarities in Doctor at Calvary. S. Bordes et al., “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33 (2019): 12–21. C. Truman Davis clearly favors asphyxiation but thinks that the final cause of death in Jesus was shock and heart failure. See Davis, “The Crucifixion of Jesus: The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View,” Arizona Medicine 22 (1965): 183–87. A revised version of this article was published later as Davis, “The Crucifixion: A Medical View,” New Wine (1982): 1–4. See also A. M. Porter, “The Crucifixion,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 271; S. J. Leinster, “Resurrection or Resuscitation?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 268–72; D. Barnardo, “Deceased or Deceit?,” Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 25 (1991): 270–71; G. J. Potter, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986): 2759–60. For another study by a surgeon, professor of medicine, and longtime medical researcher who presents some different angles while still supporting asphyxiation, see Thomas A. Miller, Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? A Surgeon-Scientist Examines the Evidence (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), esp. 78–85. Popular arguments for asphyxiation by medical doctors include Alexander Metherell, “The Medical Evidence: Was Jesus’ Death a Sham and His Resurrection a Hoax?,” in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 191–204; Robert Wassener, “A Physician Looks at the Suffering Christ,” Moody Monthly 79, no. 7 (1979): 41–42; James Hyland Jewell and Patricia A. Didden, “A Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” Voice 58, no. 2 (1979): 3–5.

65 To add to this total, detailed medical letters to the editor were published in volume 25 of the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London (1991): 268–271 (see previous footnote) following a published essay advocating the apparent death theory concerning Jesus. (The original article is detailed and critiqued in the second volume of this study that treats naturalistic theories such as the swoon theory.) Four of the five published medical letters, most of them written by British medical professors, without a dissenting view, mentioned either asphyxiation or the Roman spear piercing the heart increasing the tallies in each of these categories above. While truth is not determined by head counts, when the votes cast are by specialists, that adds to the strength of the medical evaluation.

66 For specific details on this comment, see Gary Habermas, Jonathan Kopel, and Benjamin Shaw, “Medical Views on the Death by Crucifixion of Jesus Christ,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 34 (2021): 748–52. For a contrasting view, see Thomas W. McGovern, David A. Kaminskas, and Eustace S. Fernandes, “Did Jesus Die by Suffocation?: An Appraisal of the Evidence,” Linacre Quarterly 73 (2022): 1–16.

67 Miller, Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?, 79–80.

68 For one example, see Cook, Crucifixion, 425n45. For a discussion of these details, compare Gary Habermas and Benjamin Shaw, “Crucifixion in the Ancient World: A Historical Analysis,” Eleutheria 5 (2021): 5–17.

69 These contrasts are made in various places throughout Cook’s volume, most notably on 425n45, which documents the specific usages, with nails being employed far more commonly; see 451 as well. Hengel agrees with this assessment as well in Crucifixion, 32.

70 Michael Licona performed a count of a number of relevant ancient sources and also found that nails were cited much more frequently in ancient works for affixing the individual’s feet, arms, and/or wrists than were ropes and the like. Actually, nothing pertaining to the onslaught of death turns on which sorts of fasteners were utilized. See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 304. The possibility of a few other cases has now come to light since Licona wrote his tome, which adds considerable data to the use of nails instead of tying victims. Besides Cook’s studies above, another report, bolstered by color photos of what appears to be holes in the victim’s feet, is supplied in Emanuela Gualdi-Russo et al., “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?,” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11 (2018): 1783–91. Cf. also another unresolved case that possibly involves the bones of two crucifixion victims from the Mendes area of the Nile region, where crurifragium is possible in both cases, but nails are debated. No firm conclusions were drawn from the research reported specifically in these studies. For the account, see A. C. Aufderheide and C. Rodriguez-Martin, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). The Aufderheide article here is also discussed by University of West Florida bioarchaeologist Kristina Killgrove in her blog post “Line on the Left, One Cross Each: Bioarchaeology of Crucifixion,” Powered by Osteons, November 4, 2011, http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2011/11/line-on-left-one-cross-each.html. In general, Killgrove does report the use of crurifragium and seems to think that nails are used more commonly. Although Cook allows for some possibilities (such as on 462), he seems more skeptical of these and related archaeological finds, raising a number of areas for doubt; see Cook, Crucifixion, 463–74.

71 For instance, see Zias and Charlesworth, “Crucifixion,” 281–82. In Cullen Murphy’s well-publicized article “Shreds of Evidence,” Harper’s, November 1981, 56–57, Zugibe was the chief opponent of the asphyxiation position.

72 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 89–90. A few years before Zugibe’s death, a second edition of this volume was published: The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry, 2nd ed. (New York: Evans, 2005).

73 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, esp. 94–95; cf. 42–43, 67–71, 114.

74 Zugibe, 108, 114–15.

75 For the following details concerning the work of Barbet, Mödder, and Bucklin, see the sources listed in footnotes 61 and 64 above.

76 Having known both Bucklin and Zugibe personally, I recall Bucklin telling me once in a very friendly manner that not only was he convinced that Zugibe was mistaken in his views against asphyxiation, but that he also thought he could convince other experts of the significance of asphyxiation if he had the opportunity to talk the matter through! Actually, Bucklin was quoted once as saying something quite similar regarding another medical examiner, Michael Baden, who was a friend of his. For details, see Reginald W. Rhein Jr., “The Shroud of Turin: Medical Examiners Disagree,” Medical World News, December 22, 1980, 40, 49–50.

77 Bucklin, “Trial and Death of Christ,” 24; Bucklin, “Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist’s Viewpoint,” Legal Medicine Annual (1982): 37, 39; cf. also Bucklin, “Medical Aspects of the Crucifixion of Christ,” Linacre Quarterly 31, no. 4 (1958): 1–9.

78 Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, 66.

79 For the important details here, see Haas, “Anthropological Observations,” 38–59 (see chap. 6, n. 164); cf. the equally important responses contained in the Zias and Charlesworth essay “Crucifixion,” as well as the Zias and Sekeles article, “A Crucified Man from Giv‘ar ha-Mivtar,” both listed above. Cf. also Vassilios Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and Near Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1971): 18–32 .

80 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 91–94.

81 Zugibe, 94–95. Bergeron agrees and also raised the same objection regarding the German cases in “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 2, where he states, “Such re-enactment studies cannot be considered directly comparable to crucifixion.” It should be noted that any final critique of the concentration camp examples may also potentially apply to Mödder’s German experiments as well, since the arms of his volunteers were also affixed over their heads, as clearly seen in the photograph of Mödder at work, contained in Wilcox, Shroud, 25. But how could it be determined that Zugibe’s reenactments were exactly comparable to Jesus’s case?

82 Joe Zias, “Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Evidence” (1998), 6, available for download at https://www.academia.edu/588244/Crucifixion_in_Antiquity. What seems to be a briefer, edited form of the article by Zias, titled “Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Archaeological Evidence,” was published by the Foundation for Biblical Archaeology (2010), originally located at http://tfba.co/crucifixion-in-antiquity.html (no longer accessible). Cf. Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, with Zugibe’s comments, Cross and the Shroud, 94–95.

83 Wilcox, Shroud, 161.

84 Zias, “Crucifixion in Antiquity,” 6.

85 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, see the drawing on 41.

86 As Maslen and Mitchell attest after a survey of the medical studies, Zugibe has been “the most thorough” researcher here; see “Medical Theories,” 187.

87 Maslen and Mitchell, 187. Cook seems to agree with these cautions regarding Zugibe’s experiments; see Crucifixion, 434–35.

88 See Maslen and Mitchell, “Medical Theories,” 187.

89 Of course, some well-credentialed scientific researchers with peer-reviewed studies in secular journals might retort that if ongoing tests indicate that the Shroud of Turin is indeed at least an authentic archaeological artifact, some of these questions might be answered in unexpected ways.

90 See the discussions below on the historical and archaeological evidence for crurifragium for more evidence.

91 Another possibility from an ancient source is Seneca’s comment about the long, debilitating process of crucifixion where the victim is “drawing the breath of life amid long-drawn-out agony”; see Seneca, Dial. 3.2.2. It is true that this could probably be the case simply from the twisting, turning, and pain of nearly any crucifixion victim, but it does sound as if it may describe the process of asphyxiation better than normal writhing and breathing. Translation from Seneca, Moral Essays I, trans. John W. Basore, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928).

92 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 89–90.

93 Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938.

94 An intriguing contrast is how the “rival” asphyxiation versus hypovolemic shock theses still come a bit more closely together at some very crucial places. Not surprisingly, Bucklin and Zugibe, both of whom were medical examiners, provide straightforward pronouncements that read like statements on a death certificate. Though Bucklin favored asphyxiation, he included the “failure of the cardiovascular system from shock and pain,” sounding just a little more like Zugibe. For his part, Zugibe includes “cardiac and respiratory arrest” as a part of Jesus’s death certificate (which he places all in caps). Edwards, another pathologist who is closer to Bucklin’s view, still includes hypovolemic shock and “perhaps heart failure.” For Bucklin’s comment here, see his interview in Richard Lewis, “Pathologist at Calvary: Examination of Turin Shroud Provides Crucifixion Details,” American Medical News, April 13, 1979, 21; for Zugibe’s appraisal, see Cross and the Shroud, 136; cf. 132–37; for Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, see “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1463. Besides the differing highways that can be taken on occasion, the road map can also seem to converge at a few common points, even traversing along some of the same pathways!

95 As an aside, while we do not have a body here for an autopsy, the amount of knowledge that modern medical knowledge has in Jesus’s case is simply incredible. That we have this much data about an individual who lived almost 2,000 years ago almost boggles the mind. Having only a fraction of this amount of information has not stopped us from pronouncing death in the case of many of history’s other famous persons of the past. As a comparison, it is commonly taken for granted that Alexander the Great died of some sort of fever and sickness, yet fevers do not always kill, so how could we be sure? Besides, the biographical sources for Alexander’s life are exceptionally late, even centuries after the facts! So we do not have anywhere near the luxury with Alexander that we do with the very early sources for Jesus. In Alexander’s case, how do we know precisely what happened after a few hundred years? With Jesus, this is exactly where the excellent historical evidence from a comparatively short period of time later comes into play, with far more early, independent sources than necessary, sporting a number of other checks and balances that we delineated above. As examples of the latter, those present at Jesus’s execution who would not want him to get down off the cross alive provide a level of antagonistic attestation that is also very valuable. Successfully evading the watchful eyes of the Jewish leaders as well as the Roman guards, both for quite different reasons, provides still additional “backup” in this case, as was delineated above. Briefly comparing the difference between Alexander and Jesus, New Testament historian E. P. Sanders states, “The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later—much later—writers.” See Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

96 For those favoring asphyxiation as the usual method of death by crucifixion, this would most likely indicate that, even without any medical training, the soldiers could observe readily enough that Jesus had been hanging in the “low” position on the cross. Being practiced at such executions, the Romans would know that anyone who hung like that without moving for a sufficient period of time did so because they had either already died or were very close to death. No faking or feinting was going on here! If someone cannot exhale, they cannot live for very long. The position of Jesus’s body, then, would have told them that he had indeed stopped breathing, or else he would be struggling to push or pull himself up especially so he could exhale and then gulp down more air once again, before slumping downward on the cross to begin the tortuous process all over again.

97 As noted in Suetonius, Aug. 67; Tib. 44.

98 Cicero, Philippics, trans. C. A. Ker, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 11.14; 13.27, where the translator remarks concerning Cicero’s allusions in these texts to both crucifixion and crurifragium (477n2 and 577n6). For excellent details, see S. J. Harrison, “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium,’” Classical Quarterly 33 (1983): 453–55, where, incidentally, Harrison refers to John 19:32 as one of the classic examples of this practice, see 454.

99 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 23–25, 30 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Ehrman dates the Gospel of Peter to about AD 120–130 and considers it to be independent from the canonical Gospels; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 77. If he is correct, the mention here would be a significant parallel to John’s account.

100 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 135.

101 Acts Andr. 51:1; 54:4. Translation from Dennis Ronald MacDonald, The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthias in the City of the Cannibals (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). This text is also found, though with different text numbering, in M. R. James, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924). Intriguingly, immediately after these comments concerning the command not to sever Andrew’s knees, the text remarks that the multitudes of people who were present wondered why the executors were not doing the things to Andrew that were normally done to crucifixion victims.

102 See the above discussion in this chapter. Intriguingly enough, Joe Zias and Eliezer Sekeles, who disputed portions of the original report, still concluded that Jehohanan died due to asphyxiation. See Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” 26.

103 For example, the well-known scholar Vilhelm Moller-Christenson later confirmed Haas’s account in a subsequent journal article; see Moller-Christensen, “Skeletal Remains,” 35–38 (see chap. 6, n. 164). Cf. Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs”; and Hans-Ruedi Weber, The Cross: Tradition and Interpretation, trans. Elke Jessett (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). But notice that Moller-Christensen, Tzaferis, and Weber were all written before the follow-up evaluation by Zias and Sekeles. Maslen and Mitchell supported the conclusions of Zias and Sekeles in “Medical Theories,” 186–87.

104 See Killgrove, “Line on the Left.” The Nile region case that she mentions is Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology.

105 Gualdi-Russo et al., “Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy,” 2. Retief and Cilliers also mention crurifragium among other atrocities that were applied to crucifixion victims in “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938. Incidentally, the article in this note by Gualdi-Russo et al. on 2 also lists the bones of yet another possible case of an ancient crucifixion victim in the Nile region with evidence of being nailed. See Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology.

106 Hengel, Crucifixion, 70.

107 Maslen and Mitchell report that they surveyed more than forty clinical publications on the nature of crucifixion for their research in “Medical Theories,” reprint, 3.

108 See Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938, 940.

109 As with the English pleurisy.

110 Wilkinson, a physician with training in theology, notes that the medical meaning of the English pleura refers to “the membrane which lines the cavity of the thorax and covers the lungs,” while noting that it is not that specific in the Gospel of John. See J. Wilkinson, “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28, no. 2 (1975): 152; cf. also Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1462; Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1178.

111 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 309. The source of this quotation is Quintilian, Decl. 6.9. Could this piercing simply be a reference to the use of nails instead of the more substantial body wound? In spite of the question by Craig Keener, he nonetheless opts strongly for the spear wound, citing both Quintilian as well as Valerius Maximus, De fact. 3.2.ext.5 as relevant sources here, plus noting that the “Jewish tradition also required proof of death before treating one as dead (Semaḥot 1; m. Šabb. 23:5)” as listed in Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:1151n738. As Licona points out, the Latin term percussos is defined as “to strike through and through, thrust through, pierce, transfix” (309n125). Terms such as these (especially “strike through . . . thrust through”) are much more thorough, depicting a more substantial blow, or blows, than the use of nails alone, which does not constitute thrusting at all. Raymond Brown agrees with the same evaluation as that made by Licona as well. See Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1177. Likewise, Cook concurs in detail (as listed in the text below); see Crucifixion, 111–12, 429. Lastly, Quintilian’s comment in context places the piercing and the burying together as a final indicator of death, hence in much closer proximity to the end of the process than would be the case if the reference were to the nails, which were inflicted upon the victim probably even many hours earlier.

Although not in the context of crucifixion, other relevant examples from the ancient world concerning the piercing of bodies to ensure death also exist, such as an instance from Plutarch’s Lives where a man used a knife to prod several bodies to make sure that each individual was truly dead (Cleom. 37.7). Another example comes from ancient Jewish literature that is closer to Jesus and also involves Roman soldiers. Rabbi Yohanan was trying to escape from the city of Jerusalem past the watchful eye of the Roman guards, so he posed as a dead body so that a couple of other rabbis could carry him out. But the Roman guards stopped them and wanted to stab the body with a lance, just to make sure that Yohanan was indeed dead. But the other two rabbis talked them out of it. The latter accounts are contained in both the Lam. Rab. 1.5.31 and in b. Gittin 56a. These instances are exceptionally helpful because they indicate a general tendency in the ancient world as well as the specifically Roman practice of using a lance (or a knife), precisely as in Jesus’s case. These provide very helpful background information that confirms further John’s account, making it more likely.

Religious historian John Foxe, an Oxford University student and later a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford University, during the sixteenth century, was famous for writing stories of Christian martyrs. Although these accounts were popular, anecdotal, sometimes rather fanciful, and far too late to be used here as actual research cases, one of Foxe’s descriptions is still interesting and helpful. Foxe provides this report pertaining to Roman Emperor Diocletian’s persecution of Christians in the late third century: “Some were martyred by being tied to posts, and having their hands and feet pierced with nails; after remaining in this dreadful condition for a day and night, their sufferings were ended by lances being thrust through their bodies.” See John Foxe and others, Foxe’s Christian Martyrs of the World, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1960), 96.

112 Cook, Crucifixion, 111n290.

113 Cook, 111–12.

114 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1177–78.

115 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781, esp. n. 93.

116 S. Légasse, The Trial of Jesus (London: SCM, 1997), 161n112.

117 For similar thoughts here, see Gary Habermas and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Crucifixion in the Ancient World: A Historical Analysis,” Eleutheria 5 (2021): 14.

118 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 121–30.

119 Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 154–72, for an extensive treatment of the nature of Jesus’s chest wound. It should be noted here that Wilkerson is trained in theology and is a physician, even having had “extensive experience” with many of the items in this discussion, such as postmortem pericardial fluid (esp. 165; cf. 160).

120 Wilcox, Shroud, 72–73. We are reminded here once again by a couple of these book titles that, on this consideration as well, a number of these medical researchers are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. But three important considerations need to be kept in focus at this point: these scholars could actually be correct about the shroud, so we need to keep open minds! Further, their medical conclusions pertaining to crucifixion are not necessarily affected by their conclusions regarding this cloth. Moreover, especially since it is unlikely at this point that the shroud is a fake, it could well occupy something of a middle ground as an authentic archaeological artifact that once truly wrapped a crucifixion victim, even if it never belonged to Jesus. In this case, it would still be exceptionally useful in revealing absolutely crucial medical information regarding the process that we are addressing here, including the spear wound in the chest.

121 See Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 125, 151. Wilkinson states, “No one who has performed a postmortem examination of a body recently dead would agree with Origen’s observation that neither blood nor water flows from a corpse.” See “Blood and Water,” 159–60.

122 Sava, “Holy Shroud on Trial,” 50–56, particularly 53, including the quoted sentence above.

123 Bucklin, “Shroud of Turin,” 9. While Bucklin is referring chiefly to studies on the Shroud of Turin here, two additional items should be remembered. Even if the Shroud were not that of Jesus but still wrapped a real crucifixion victim (a conclusion that seems quite firm), Bucklin’s conclusions would still be helpful and well grounded. Further, Sava’s conclusions were also drawn largely from the Shroud, as his title indicates, so that he and Bucklin are on a level playing field so to speak.

124 Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 160.

125 Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 127. This last point regarding the importance of the blood and water in John 19:34 staying separate and/or coming out in precisely that order without being mixed at all has just always seemed to me to make too many demands on this text. Yet, medical researchers often mention them, almost as prescriptions or meticulous patterns, as reasons to reject certain physiological theses. Presumably, the idea is that John seems to think that they were totally separate substances and that they emerged one at a time, with the blood coming first followed by the water. While the sense there definitely appears to be that both substances could be clearly detected coming from Jesus’s wound, this does not seem to require that a hard-and-fast differentiation between the two be made. In contrast, it seems that there could be mixed portions of each as long as both were clearly visible. The point here is that the textual description does not appear to be good grounds to decide between precise physiological options. Wilkinson, being trained in both theology and medicine, appears to agree here; see “Blood and Water,” 153–54, but see 156, as well.

126 Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1463; Bergeron, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 3; Mödder, “Die Todesurache,” 50–59; David Willis, “Did He Die on the Cross?,” Ampleforth Journal 74 (1969): 27–39; Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 127–30; Bucklin, “Shroud of Turin,” 9; Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin, 90 (see chap. 6, n. 167); Willis’s view, taken from his unpublished notes, along with Mödder’s position, are reproduced by Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ? (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), esp. 29; see also 30; cf. Wilcox, Shroud, 73.

127 Barbet, Doctor at Calvary, 113; Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 154–72, for more details on Barbet’s seminal work, see 159–61; Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 941, but possibly having traveled through the chest first; Davis, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 187 (repr., 4); Jewell and Didden, “Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” 5; Wassener, “Suffering Christ,” 42; cf. Blum, “Jesus and JAMA,” 11.

128 One of the major medical scholars in recent decades to do work on death by crucifixion has been Yale University professor John Heller, who also explicitly affirms the postmortem nature of the chest wound; see Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Mifflin, 1983), 217; cf. 202. See also Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1463; Davis, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 187; Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 154–55, 159. This aspect is also mentioned clearly by other physicians like Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 127–30; pathologist Bucklin, personal discussions, May 5 and May 30, 1981, plus his article “Shroud of Turin,” 8–9; Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin, 90; Wassener, “Suffering Christ,” 42; Jewell and Didden, “Surgeon Looks at the Cross,” 5; and it seems that this is Sava’s view as well; see “Holy Shroud on Trial,” 53, in particular. It is very likely to also be the conclusion of many of the other researchers listed in the last two notes above. Once again, in spite of many of these discussions listed here also involving the Shroud of Turin, it must be remembered that whatever is thought of this cloth, the scholars doing the investigations are trained in various medical specialties, where their medical studies are being utilized regardless of their conclusions about the shroud.

129 Bergeron, “Crucifixion of Jesus,” 3.

130 The well-known and operative phrase here was probably “Not on my watch”!

131 It would really be a long shot for a trained soldier who was attempting to ensure the death of a stationary target to stab his spear into Jesus’s chest region and never pierce a vital location such as a lung, or the pericardium, aorta, or heart. Of Zugibe’s eleven proposed medical hypotheses to explain the nature of this wound, only three of them even proposed that Jesus was still alive at that time, thereby conceding the death verdict! In the remaining three scenarios, each involved the spear entering the heart or lung space. Eight of the views involved either the piercing or the rupturing of the aorta/heart. All but one of the eleven theses proposed a heart or chest wound, and that single exception proposed that Jesus was already dead anyway! See Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 121–30.

132 Zugibe, 165.

133 Zugibe, 165. During or after lectures, I have been told of several personal experiences that people in the crowd have had with pneumothoraxes. I distinctly remember hearing of another experience very similar to Zugibe’s account above, where a former police officer was standing near an unconscious man who had been stabbed in the chest, wondering what the sucking sound was that he could hear. In another case, an emergency room nurse explained to the group what had to be done in these circumstances, where very quick action was necessary to save a life. These chest wounds are so common, prominent, and dangerous during wartime that the US Army teaches soldiers how to respond immediately. The condition needs to be treated very quickly even in these modern times to save the person’s life. See First Aid for Soldiers Field Manual (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1983), 3–14, 3–35, with drawings of the proper medical response on 3–32 to 3–35.

134 Josephus testifies in Life, “I saw many captives crucified” (75).

135 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 311–12. Licona has since learned of the other examples from Herodotus and John Cheek.

136 Josephus, Life 75. The translation used here is William Whiston, Josephus: Complete Works (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960).

137 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 311.

138 Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer agree, see “Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” 1455, 1463.

139 As per Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938.

140 Craig Keener provides the following list of these texts: John 1:31, 33; 2:6; 3:5; 4:14; 5:2; 9:7; 13:5. See Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1153.

141 However, as mentioned earlier, the Gospel of Peter (4:14) does mention the practice of breaking the legs of crucifixion victims, and as an independent source, it would serve as additional attestation.

142 Such as Heb 2:10; 4:15; 5:8–9.

143 For example, one of the themes of Hengel’s book on crucifixion is to explain that this subject was viewed so disdainfully in the ancient world that it was seldom even mentioned in polite company. In fact, as mentioned above, the details the Gospels provide on this subject are still more than any other ancient narrative; see Hengel, Crucifixion, 25, 37–38.

144 So it well may be that the reason why only John mentions these last items is this same sense that made the Gospel writers virtually ignore the scourging and the use of nails, as we just recounted in the previous note above regarding the ancient attitudes on the social impropriety of discussing aspects of crucifixion.

145 An excellent analogy here was the popular practice among Roman historians to do similarly: they frequently noted that particular events were actually the fulfillment of various prophecies. On other occasions, the authors saw the occurrences they were recording in more mystical terms as omens or portents. But they did not thereby think or propose that the actual events themselves did not happen! Many examples abound in Tacitus (Ann. 1.28, 55; 14.22; Hist. 513) and Suetonius (Jul. 88; Aug. 94, 96; Cal. 57–58, Claud. 46; Nero 56, Vesp. 5, 7, 23–25; Dom. 23). In fact, editor Robert Graves states that in spite of Suetonius’s reliance on omens, he is still “trustworthy enough”; see Graves, Twelve Caesars, 7.

146 The Roman practice of crurifragium is noted in both numerous ancient sources (Cicero, Fat. 5; Phil. 11.14, 13.27; Plautus, Poen. 886; John 19:31–32; Gos. Pet. 4:14; Acts Andr. 51:1; 54:4) plus several possible archaeological sources, such as those noted by S. J. Harrison, “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium,’” 453–55; Haas, “Anthropological Observations,” 57 (see chap. 6, n. 164); Moller-Christensen, “Skeletal Remains,” 35–38; Zugibe, Cross and the Shroud, 92–94; Légasse adds his own name to this list as well in Trial of Jesus, 161; Gualdi-Russo et al., “Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy,” 2; Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology; Killgrove, “Line on the Left,” 1–11, with contemporary positive verdicts from critical scholars such as Crossan, Brown, and Wilkinson, among many others.

147 Besides the account in John 19:33–35, further confirmation of death blows, particularly piercings, come from Quintilian, Decl. 6.9; Plutarch, Cleom. 37.7; Per. 28.3; along with the Jewish story and sources above (Lam. Rab. 1.5.31; b. Gittin 56a; see footnote 111 above) pertaining to the regular Roman practice of piercing dead bodies to assure the reality of death. Cf. also Retief and Cilliers, “History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” 938, 940. Among others, additional critical scholars who agree include Derrett, Hengel, Dunn, Brown, Légasse, and Wilkinson.

148 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 2:946.

149 Wilkinson makes a related comment in “Blood and Water,” 169.

150 Brown, John, 2:948.

151 Wilkinson, “Blood and Water,” 150.

152 Incidentally, it makes absolutely no difference for our purposes whether a critical scholar thinks that the incident with Thomas did or did not actually take place. The chief point here is what the author meant by recording the events he described. It is more than clear from his previous description of the spear wound causing the flow of blood and water, as well as Thomas’s response to Jesus, that the author meant that the stab with the lance should be understood as a purposeful coup de grâce, to ensure Jesus’s death.

153 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781n93. To Dunn’s testimony here we may add the views of critical scholars such as Raymond Brown and John Wilkinson regarding the likelihood that John reports historical data regarding crucifixion aspects noted here. C. H. Dodd should also be added to this group, from his volume Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 133. Légasse, “The Trial of Jesus,” 97–98.

154 Brown, John, 2:934, 946–48; also, Brown, Death of the Messiah, esp. 2:1176–77. In the latter source, Brown is quite critical of medical doctors who comment on Jesus’s death without understanding some of the textual nuances (2:1089, 1092). Yet, his comment that physicians especially do not understand the theological overtones (2:1089) largely applies only to the spear wound, since the extensive medical literature on death by crucifixion as a whole, including many relevant experiments such as those we have discussed above, are all very helpful. After all, in spite of his criticism, Brown still surveys the medical work for several pages (2:1088–1092). So how bad can it be? One other important item should be mentioned here. Brown comments more than once that the most surprising and troublesome detail in John’s account is that dead bodies do not bleed; e.g., John, 2:946. One cannot help but wonder if this issue for Brown contributed somehow to his emphasizing of the “mystical” aspects and playing down the historical ones in John, since according to his interpretation, it would appear that Jesus was still alive at this point in spite of John’s comment to the contrary. Here is a place where Brown should have listened more closely to the exact same medical sources on which he is commenting and citing in the immediate context. As we have discussed above, it is more than clear that dead bodies do indeed bleed, especially if a place like the right side of the heart is pierced, where the blood has not yet coagulated. See Wilkinson, “Blood and Water.” After all, glass jars should not leak liquid either, but if someone breaks the glass, the contents have to go somewhere!

155 J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1982), 50. Derrett also doubted Jesus’s death on the cross. A much later essay by Derrett continues many of the same ideas; Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” in Price and Lowder, The Empty Tomb, 393–94, 399, 401–4 (see chap. 4, n. 11).

156 Wilkerson, “Blood and Water,” 149.

157 David Strauss, Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 8th ed. (Leipzig: Brodhaus, 1864), with Strauss treating the apparent death theory on 295–99, esp. 299. Strauss uses the term swoon on 297 of the original German edition. The English translation is David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:408–12, esp. 412.

158 As Ehrman declares, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” Ehrman, Apocalpytic Prophet, 231 (see chap. 5, n. 43). Ehrman also insists, “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead” (230).

159 Strauss, Das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, 299.

160 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 131–33, 203–4 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

161 Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 10, 56–57, 62–65 (see chap. 4, n. 16) for the incredible influence of Strauss’s critiques on German liberalism.

162 The details can be found in Habermas, Kopel, and Shaw, “Medical Views,” 751.

163 For one or more reasons, a few of the notable volumes that argue this initial point include: Antonacci, Test the Shroud (see chap. 6, n. 167); Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin; Mark W. Foreman, “The Image on the Shroud: A Best Explanations Approach,” in Raised on the Third Day: Defending the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus—Essays in Honor of Dr. Gary R. Habermas, ed. W. David Beck and Michael R. Licona (Bellingham: Lexham, 2020), 37–60.

164 For a briefer statement of what has been argued in much more detail in other studies, see Gary R. Habermas, “Historical Epistemology, Jesus’ Resurrection, and the Shroud of Turin,” Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, ed. Bryan J. Walsh (Richmond, VA: Magisterium, 2000), 267–79; see also Antonacci, Test the Shroud, 89–95; Whanger and Whanger, Shroud of Turin, 122–25.

165 See the survey of medical sources and views by Antonacci, Test the Shroud, 17–37; cf. the list of medical indications by William Meacham, “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology,” Current Anthropology 24 (1983): 286.

166 Cf. John A. T. Robinson, “Re-investigating the Shroud of Turin,” Theology 80 (1977): 193–97; Robinson, “The Shroud and the New Testament,” in Face to Face with the Turin Shroud, ed. Peter Jennings (Oxford: Mowbray, 1978), 69–80; Robinson, “The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the Gospels,” in Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin, ed. Kenneth E. Stevenson (Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 23–30.

167 Gerald O’Collins, “The Shroud of Turin: Its Implications for Faith and Theology,” The Way 20 (1980): 140–47.

168 Raymond E. Brown, “Brief Observations on The Shroud of Turin,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 14, no. 4 (1984): 145–48.

169 See texts such as Rom 1:3–4; 10:9–10; 1 Cor 15:3–4; 2 Tim 2:8, or some of the Acts sermon summaries, such as 2:29–36. While more obvious in some texts than others, these passages indicate the deity of Jesus especially by the use of titles such as “Son of God” and “Lord” (Rom 1:3–4; 10:9). This point will be discussed below.

Excursus 1
Jesus’s Death and Contemporary Scholarship

As part of the Gospel message at the center of earliest Christianity, it is no surprise that the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion has gotten widespread attention from the community of critical scholars. In this excursus, we will view multiple aspects of this topic with the overall purpose being to determine the scholarly “lay of the land.” To what extent does recent scholarship consider these features to be well established? What are major researchers saying about Jesus’s death by crucifixion?

This effort fits as a cog in our overall minimal facts methodology. This approach rests on two foundations, with the initial one being far more crucial. First, the crucifixion needs to be established from multiple arguments to indicate that it is a historical event. To that end, in the previous chapter we studied in depth the factual foundations for establishing the historicity of the crucifixion, viewing a wide variety of historical, medical, and additional considerations each pointing to this occurrence. With at least twelve separate considerations in its favor, we concluded that it would be difficult to find a historical fact from ancient history more firmly grounded than Jesus’s crucifixion.

Second, the other minimal facts criterion is that the vast majority of critical scholars who have studied this material also agree that Jesus’s crucifixion is a historical event due to reasons such as those we just raised earlier. So how do these scholars deal with the crucifixion event and many of the surrounding questions?

Critical Views of Crucifixion Historicity

Exceptionally few critical scholars today challenge the fact of Jesus’s death by crucifixion. No matter where they are across the critical range of views, from skeptical to conservative, it is not difficult to find an array of positive comments from contemporary researchers that Jesus’s death by Roman crucifixion is virtually a “given” as the best-evidenced and most widely known aspect of the historical Jesus’s life.

Examples even from more skeptical authors are not at all difficult to locate. Atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who makes it clear that he is not a Christian, sums it up this way: “The most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion is independently attested in a wide array of sources and is not the sort of thing that believers would want to make up about the person proclaimed to be the powerful Son of God.”1 John Dominic Crossan states similarly: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”2 Elsewhere, Crossan asserts, “I take it absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.”3 Marcus Borg agrees with Ehrman that “the most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel.”4

Jewish historian Geza Vermes reports that it is “hardly questionable” that Jesus died by crucifixion,5 including “being crucified under Pontius Pilate” as “one of the non-controversial facts concerning Jesus’ life and activity.”6 James Tabor, one of the more skeptical scholars, adds: “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead and that his temporary place of burial was discovered to be empty shortly thereafter.”7 Elaine Pagels adds: “There is only one fact on which nearly all accounts about Jesus of Nazareth, whether written by persons hostile or devoted to him, agree: that, by order of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, he was condemned and crucified (c. 30).”8

Jesus Seminar cofounder Robert Funk includes the crucifixion of Jesus among the historical facts we may count as common ground.9 Then he adds, “The bare facts that Jesus was executed in Jerusalem on the authority of Pontius Pilate have stood up under close and repeated examination.”10 Even atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann allows that “the fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”11

The views of mostly skeptical authors were listed purposely here. For if these plus still additional critical scholars present this degree of unanimity on the facts surrounding Jesus’s crucifixion, imagine how many times over these sorts of comments could be multiplied by other skeptics as well as by liberals, moderates, and conservatives.12 Reminiscent of the comments by Ehrman and Borg just mentioned, John Carroll and Joel Green proclaim in one of the most detailed volumes on the death of Jesus, “The historian’s interest is piqued, first by the certainty of the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in human history. In fact, on the continuum of historical probability, Jesus’ crucifixion ‘under Pontius Pilate’ is the most certain of all claims related to Jesus.”13 Justin Bass provides a list of still more critical scholars and their positive reasons and citations on this well-settled subject.14

The Date of the Crucifixion15

By far, the majority of scholars think that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred in the spring of AD 30. Even a few examples should provide a cross section. Some scholars are very specific. For example, Thomas Sheehan and Hans-Reudi Weber place this event on April 7, AD 30.16 Raymond Brown thinks the most likely dates are either April 7, 30, or April 3, 33, but he reports that he cannot choose between them: “I see no possibility of coming to a decision choosing one of the two years.”17 John Meier decides in favor of a week later, on April 14, AD 30.18 Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Elaine Pagels, James Tabor, Martin Hengel, Craig Blomberg, Gerard Sloyan, Mike Licona, Donald Goergen, as well as Bart Ehrman all likewise prefer AD 30, as do many others as well.19 E. P. Sanders computes some dates while pointing out that most scholars are simply content to place the crucifixion somewhere between AD 29 and 33. But in the end, he settles for approximately 30.20 Still other researchers such as Dale Allison also similarly acknowledge the dates of 30 and 33, whatever their personal preferences.21

After having done an intricate set of calculations, New Testament scholar Harold Hoehner is one of the best known scholars to opt for AD 33, as do historians Paul Barnett and Paul Maier.22 Others make this move as well.23 But as remarked above, Brown also thinks that 33 is a strong choice as well. Hoehner, among others such as those already cited above, thinks that AD 33 and AD 30 are really the only viable options, though several opt for the latter rather than the earlier date.

Barnett points out some of the key dates for these views to consider, including the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry and Paul’s arrival in Corinth. Tiberius Caesar was proclaimed Roman emperor in September, AD 14. Tiberius’s fifteenth year would have been AD 29, which according to Luke 3:1 is when John the Baptist began his preaching. If Jesus began preaching the same year as did John, then for those scholars who opt for AD 30 as the date of his crucifixion, Jesus’s public ministry actually appears to have lasted for only one full year.24

On the other hand, for those who think that Jesus’s ministry lasted for more than a year, the only other viable option according to some scholars is AD 33. According to this scenario, Paul would have been converted after 33, perhaps 34 or 35,25 but before AD 36 or 37 when Paul left Damascus. Other dates of importance include Emperor Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome in 49, Paul’s probable arrival in Corinth in 50 for a stay of eighteen months, and Gallio’s one-year term as proconsul of Corinth from 51 to 52.26 According to Barnett, this time frame fits well with the fourteen years that Paul mentions in Gal 2:1. Incidentally, on this calculation, Galatians may have been written a mere fifteen years after the crucifixion.27

Hoehner adds a number of additional items as well, ranging through astronomy, history, and the New Testament. As with Barnett, Jesus’s ministry lasting longer than one year is a major consideration here, although as Hoehner points out, there are other ways for someone to prefer a crucifixion date of AD 30 and still allow a little more than two years for Jesus’s ministry.28 Hoehner adds three additional historical arguments for a date of 33, all concerning Pilate, Herod, and Emperor Tiberius, but frankly, none seems very strong, and each is rather perspectival in nature. In the end, Hoehner thinks that of all the dates that have been proposed, only AD 30 or 33 are plausible.29

Since Hoehner’s “bottom line” is shared by many scholars, this last point is a fair way to conclude the matter of the historical date for the crucifixion of Jesus. The possibilities, then, seem to have been narrowed to either AD 30 or 33. There is no need to push the matter further, and it is questionable whether we could do so anyway. As Barnett states, “Nothing hangs on absolute precision” here.30 However, for the purposes of our approach in this study, because we are embracing the minimal facts method, we will follow the vast majority of recent scholars and opt for AD 30 as the date for Jesus’s crucifixion, even if it is meant to be a general date.

How Did Jesus Die: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?

In the previous chapter we viewed the historical and medical data that provide the best indications of how Jesus died on the cross. Here we are interested in the views within the critical community of scholars. What is reported about the nature of crucifixion? How do these researchers think that Jesus died?

Many contemporary researchers have mentioned that crucifixion was such a heinous form of death that the ancients often did not wish even to discuss it or to provide the gory details. As a result, when early Christians began to preach the gospel message, it was frequently a difficult hurdle to overcome.31 For instance, after examining a couple of Qumran texts (especially 4QpNah), Joseph Fitzmyer concludes that we have “pre-Christian evidence that Jews did regard crucifixion practiced in that period as a form of the ‘hanging’ to which Deut 21:22–23 could be referred.”32 This would indicate that Jesus’s death by crucifixion seemed to the Jews to be a cursed death. As Carroll and Green point out, “What is more, it is apparent from both Christian and non-Christian sources of the first centuries C.E. that it was the offense of the abhorrent death of Jesus that opponents of the Christian message seized upon to discredit the claims made by Christians and that Christians had to overcome to render their faith intelligible within the wider world.”33 James D. G. Dunn argues that today’s Christian message has been softened and is nowhere near as offensive as it was in the earliest church.34

Researchers agree that those who were crucified in antiquity were most often nailed to crosses, stakes, posts, trees, boards, or any other structures, though Cook, in possibly the most detailed volume on this general subject, points out that the Romans probably did not crucify people on boards or walls.35 Martin Hengel, in another meticulously researched little volume on crucifixion, states that the use of nails was the “norm.” Actually, tying the sufferers is only mentioned rarely.36 The first-century crucifixion victim whose bones were discovered in 1968 (Jehohanan) had one or more nails at least through his heel bones, and earlier reports concluded that he had suffered crurifragium.37 While it is still too early to determine for sure, the bones of a couple of other crucifixion victims may also have been found in recent years, likewise with nails appearing to be used, but more work needs to be done in these cases.38

James Tabor reports more details than most scholars regarding death by crucifixion, perhaps in part because, as an archaeologist, he has studied many Jewish tombs. He notes that crucifixion was a very slow process that might take as long as two or three days. Indicating his familiarity with the research literature, he concludes as we did in the previous chapter: “Depending on the angle in which the arms and legs were nailed, death could be brought on more quickly, or extended.”39

It might be expected that New Testament researchers, historians, theologians, and scholars in similar fields would also read the medical literature concerning death by crucifixion. To whatever extent this may be true, it is perhaps no surprise or coincidence when the majority view among the critical scholars we are discussing here, just as it is among their medical colleagues, is that Jesus probably died due to asphyxiation. In fact, few other options even seem to be discussed. For instance, Tabor holds that
death resulted from a combination of shock, exhaustion, muscle cramps, dehydration, loss of blood, and finally suffocation or heart failure. . . . Over time, as fatigue set in breathing became acutely difficult. If there was a reason to hasten death, the legs of the victim could be broken, causing the body to slump and making breathing impossible after just a short time.40

Carrol and Green speak similarly to Tabor. They comment that “death came slowly, sometimes over several days, as the body surrendered to shock or to the painful process of asphyxiation as the muscles used in breathing experienced paralysis brought on by fatigue.”41

Crossan also mentions the breaking of ankles to hasten death by crucifixion, which thereby “rendered breathing impossible so that one died swiftly of asphyxiation or shock.” He illustrates this with what he dates as a second-century account of the apostle Andrew’s crucifixion and martyrdom, where the apostle’s executioners are forbidden to use nails or to break or cut his legs so that he will suffer longer.42

Many other scholars make similar comments regarding the central importance of asphyxiation. N. T. Wright states, “When crucified people had their legs broken, they died very quickly, from asphyxiation.”43 Pheme Perkins reports, “It was customary to hasten the death (by suffocation) of a crucified person by breaking his legs.”44 Zias and Sekeles point out that death by crucifixion was obviously quite painful and was caused by asphyxiation due to the effects that hanging had on the intercostal and diaphragm muscles.45 Others who agree with these and other assessments regarding asphyxiation include Sloyan,46 Goergen,47 and Weber.48

This is not to say that these researchers believe asphyxiation alone was responsible for all these medical effects. Like their medical colleagues, they agree that other aspects were involved as well. For example, Crossan, Tabor, Carroll and Green, plus Weber all mention shock among a few other options. But for all of these scholars, asphyxiation is viewed as the most central factor. On the other hand, after a detailed survey of many well-known medical sources, Brown also includes the comment that pathologist Zugibe’s research opposed the asphyxiation findings.49 Notably, Zugibe’s findings were also opposed by others.50

Why Did Jesus Die: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?

Of all the potential questions regarding the general issues surrounding Jesus’s crucifixion beyond the medical thoughts alone, the theological implications are among the most interesting. The classic response for the reason Jesus died has often been that Jesus offended most of the Jewish leaders for basically religious reasons. He was eventually charged with blasphemy for reasons such as claiming alternately to be the Messiah, the Son of Man, or even the Son of God. Some think that his claim to sit at God’s right hand was the most offensive for the Jewish leaders.51

The most authoritative text here may be Mark 14:61–64. Standing before the Jewish leaders, several witnesses make charges against Jesus, such as having heard him assert that he would destroy the temple and then build it again (15:55–60). Perhaps not liking the direction of the comments so far, in verse 61 the high priest takes over the questioning. He asks Jesus if he were the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One. Jesus responds confidently in the affirmative, attesting, “I am” (ego eimi). Then he goes further and proclaims that the Son of Man would sit at God’s right hand and come on the clouds, presumably in judgment on the Jewish leaders and others (15:61–64). The resulting public verdict in this text is that he was guilty of blasphemy and deserved to die.

However, when Jesus is taken before Pilate, the religious verdict can no longer be the main charge, for that would be interpreted as a Jewish theological dispute in which the Romans would have no interest (as in John 18:31). For the local Roman ruler’s ears, then, this Jewish religious charge may have given way to a more political complaint, into a basic tension whereby Pilate either had to condemn Jesus to death or else he would have indicated that he was no friend of Caesar’s (John 19:12). Although he attempted other maneuvers, Pilate eventually acceded to the crowd’s demands and turned Jesus over to his soldiers to be crucified (Mark 15:12–15).

Arguably, one of the most intriguing parts of the contemporary theological dialogue is how the theological sides line up along “party lines.” Guesses on the specific parameters will probably be correct much of the time. If the commentator tends to be a little more conservative or even somewhat moderate, Jesus was condemned for religious reasons, even for teaching a high Christology, with little or no mention of political causes. But if the commentator is more liberal, often all that gets mentioned is that Jesus was perceived by the authorities to be a political rebel who was a definite danger to the state.

Why do these different groups seem to approach this issue with seemingly airtight categories? Of course, there are reasons in both cases. The “conservatives” and certain moderates may respond that they are following Mark’s key text in 14:61–64, along with other key passages, and that is simply what the best-evidenced sources record. However, it was the Romans who did the actual crucifying and they did not care one iota about Jesus’s theology, whatever it was, except where the controversy may have affected the well-being of the state. But conservatives often leave out the latter part. For the latter scholars, one of their chief concerns is who Jesus thought he was and what he actually claimed on his own behalf.

But it often seems that the most interesting moves are made by the “liberals.” For many decades now, this group has usually opposed the placing of any high Christological utterances whatsoever on Jesus’s own lips. Such an understanding is always intriguing when it is more than obvious to other scholars that this was the case. Why not simply respond that the best data now affirm that Jesus did teach some of these lofty things—as indicated by the latest and strongest research52—but that he was simply mistaken? After all, some of these critical scholars do respond precisely like this on certain other matters.

But that often will not do on this topic. It is often not spoken out loud, and the analysis provided here could be pronounced as simply being mistaken. But it seems that more “liberal” commentators respect Jesus so much that they cannot deal with him having made any high Christological pronouncements, let alone being mistaken in so doing. Hence they often prefer to characterize the whole situation in political terms.

On the other hand, if what we have referred to as the “more conservative” blasphemy charge is correct, precisely what more did Jesus claim? Where did Jesus cross the line? For Raymond Brown, it was Jesus’s assertion that he was the “apocalyptic Son of Man” that went too far and was blasphemous because it revealed “arrogant intentions infringing on divine prerogatives.”53

A particular theme from Mark 14:62 is perhaps the most popular among these scholars. For Evans, when Jesus declared that he would sit at God’s right hand, “Jesus anticipated sharing God’s chariot throne. Such a claim would have been scandalous, for the idea of a mortal sitting on God’s throne was unthinkable.” Then Evans concludes, “Surely Jesus’ claim to share God’s throne . . . would have prompted the High Priest to accuse Jesus of blasphemy.”54

Similarly, N. T. Wright thinks that Jesus referred here to Dan 7:13–14, Psalm 110, and thereby echoed key passages in 1 Enoch. This combination equaled an extraordinary claim by Jesus to “an enthronement in which the Messiah, or the ‘son of man’, would share the very throne of Israel’s god.”55 Witherington adds Ps 80:17 to what he terms “a creative conglomerate” specifying that Jesus “deliberately” combined these ideas to produce a “definite enthronement” theme.56 Darrell Bock has probably done the most study and publishing on this particular text, and his conclusion is quite close to that of Evans, Wright, and Witherington.57

On what has been referred to as the “more liberal” political view, some of the Jesus Seminar leaders are among those who have responded. John Dominic Crossan refers to “my understanding of Jesus as a peasant revolutionary, but a radically social rather than an aggressively military one.”58 For Marcus Borg, “the most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel.”59 Elsewhere Borg states that Jesus’s death by crucifixion was due to his being perceived by the Romans “as a political threat to Roman order.”60 Robert Funk thinks that there may have been more than one option here: Jesus was “probably executed summarily as a threat to public order” during a crowded Passover season, or “as a pretender to the Davidic throne” or for his “hostile act directed against the temple.”61

Richard Horsley raises questions concerning the possible political implications of Jesus’s ministry. He states that “Jesus was clearly condemned to crucifixion as a figure whom the Roman authority found politically dangerous, actually or potentially disruptive of the Roman order.”62 E. P. Sanders states that Jesus was crucified “as an insurgent.”63

Given the quick look at Mark 14:61–64 above and the exceptionally influential critical scholars who took these views, Sloyan’s comment on this exact same text appears rather strange. Sloyan charges that Jesus did not die for blasphemy simply because he never proclaimed anything that would make him guilty of this charge. In fact, nothing in the Gospels would bring us to this conclusion!64

N. T. Wright provides a nice summary that includes both of these major perspectives that have been mentioned here, asking what Jesus looked like from the viewpoint of the Jewish authorities and providing five reasons for his condemnation. (1) Jesus was thought by the Jewish leaders to be a false prophet. (2) Jesus’s actions in the temple and his words about destroying the temple, the chief Jewish symbol, were highly offensive. (3) Jesus thought of himself in some sense as the Messiah, involving the possibility of “serious revolutionary activity.” (4) Jesus was “a dangerous political nuisance” that might bring on Roman retribution. (5) Then, while standing before his accusers, “at the crucial point in the hearing, he not only . . . pleaded guilty to the above charges, but also did so in such a way as to place himself, blasphemously, alongside the god of Israel.”65

Something that emerges during this discussion is that both of the major positions that we have outlined above (complete with many nuances in between) are correct regarding a portion of the overall picture. From what has been termed the conservative angle, as well as being probably the predominant concern of the Jewish leaders, Jesus did make many explicit and implicit comments regarding what could only been taken as a very high view of himself—the sorts of things that certainly would have been outrageous and offensive had they not been true. Was he the Son of God, or the Son of Man (especially in a Jewish context), or going to be a co-occupant on God’s throne? In spite of Sloyan’s comments above, it seems many Jews found his teaching to be highly blasphemous.

But from what has been labeled as the general liberal angle, Jesus’s ministry certainly exhibited some political overtones. It must be remembered here that “political” in these terms does not indicate a desire to run for office or wanting to be a literal king. Anyone who was capable of gathering a huge crowd at a moment’s notice could turn that crowd against the much-hated Romans. This was even more the case when the individual was a charismatic, electric figure, especially one who reputedly performed miracles!

So even if Jesus were only preaching and healing, seemingly apart from any political inclinations whatsoever, he would still have to be watched by the Romans, simply in terms of the pervasive Jewish reputation for rebellion and violence. Further, this heightened awareness from the Romans would have been at its very apex during the time of the Passover, when the environs of Jerusalem would be swollen by many visitors, many of whom presumably were possessed by great amounts of nationalistic pride.

This was certainly a multifaceted issue. Jesus himself, not to mention his teachings and actions, certainly evoked many responses. For just an example or two, what would someone think about him if he had just healed them or a family member from a long, very painful, and debilitating disease?

On the other hand, how would a religious teacher feel about Jesus if the former were really trying to do and teach the right things, and Jesus looked into his eyes and pronounced that he was on the wrong theological path? Very likely, the simple human emotion might be hatred or even loathing that Jesus was getting all the attention while the other religious teachers were sometimes being ignored or even criticized. Thus, we should be aware of attempts to see Jesus from only one angle.

Craig Blomberg is one of the many scholars who has turned things in a different direction here. Blomberg probes further as to whether anyone would have sentenced Jesus to the death penalty if he were only the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar—the Cynic philosopher, societal critic, and gadfly without much of a specific religious message.66 Quite similarly, Dunn inquires of Crossan during a written dialogue: “That’s a much easier message to translate into the twenty-first century . . . but it leaves us back with the modernizers of the nineteenth-century quest, with a Jesus who is far too nice to be worth crucifying.”67 Or what about scholars who favor the very popular image of an egalitarian Jesus who more closely fits our sensibilities today, with our “enlightened” notions of women’s rights, a general tolerance, and political correctness? Who would kill him for being such a fine, liberated fellow?68

The Significance of Jesus’s Death

One of the main issues here is this: Did Jesus think of his death in any way as a substitutionary sacrifice or as an atoning payment for the sins of others? More liberal and skeptical scholars frequently find these notions to be simply appalling, and sometimes go as far as to label them as child abuse or remark that it is impossible that one person’s sacrifice could pay for another’s sin.69

This subject is somewhat related to the previous one, in that there is often a huge gulf between more conservative plus some moderate critical scholars on the one side and their more liberal and skeptical colleagues on the other, with all the many nuances in between.70 It is also amazing that some commentators often seem unable to locate the particular teaching of an atonement or payment for the sins of others in Jesus’s teachings at all but attribute it to the teachings of the church. However, conservatives and some moderates locate it regularly in Jesus’s own teachings. Ironically enough, many of these moderate scholars in particular, who have no problem tracing the teaching to Jesus himself and think there are many reasons for doing so, are very influential researchers, as we will see.

On the more liberal side, Marcus Borg recognizes that “this central emphasis on the unique achievement of Jesus’ death as the sin-offering, once-for-all liberating act of Israel’s God remained at the center of early Christian thought.” However, Borg does not think that it was Jesus’s own teaching.71 He also rejects Wright’s proposal that Jesus thought his death was central.72 Borg notes “five meanings of the completed pattern of death and resurrection found in the New Testament itself.” These are the ideas of “rejection/vindication; defeat of the powers; revelation of the way; revelation of the love of God; sacrifice for sin.”73 After summarizing these five meanings in almost the same way, Borg adds, “All of these interpretations make enormous sense to me when I view them as the product of the early community. They are central to the community’s proclamation of the significance of what had happened in Jesus.” But then he goes on to say once again that none of these five aspects is central to Jesus’s own teaching or understanding.74

Sloyan agrees with Borg. He thinks that, as far as we know, Paul was the earliest writer to construe Jesus’s death “as expiating human sin and sinfulness.” We just do not know what either earlier Christians or Jesus thought on the subject.75

But no less a New Testament scholar than Martin Hengel objects to Borg’s and Sloyan’s assertions. Hengel emphasizes that “the Christian message fundamentally broke apart the customary conceptions of atonement in the ancient world and did so at many points.”76 Here Hengel provides several examples such as universal atonement, offered “for all human guilt,” performed by God rather than by a human superhero, and affirmed particularly in eschatological terms.77

Later Hengel asserts, “Methodologically, then, we are justified, indeed compelled, to push our enquiry back to Jesus himself. . . . It should no longer be doubted that he reckoned with the possibility of his own execution . . . a violent death . . . Jesus wanted to prepare the way for the coming of the kingdom of God through his sacrificial death.”78 Answering the question about whether this atonement teaching goes all the way back to Jesus, Hengel concludes, “we find explicit formulae” in two places where the words of Jesus are cited: Mark 10:45 and Mark 14:24, at the Last Supper.79

This last comment by Hengel is quite significant. To argue that there are specific “formulae” here is to contend that the earliest church’s arranging of Jesus’s teachings into creedal statements that could be memorized easily probably goes back to the pre-Pauline period. In other words, for Hengel in his comments above, the content of the teachings were from Jesus himself, while the formulae were standardized forms of that teaching from just a short time later. Thus, the point here is that the specific formulation of the words still happened at a very early date.

One solid reason for this conclusion is that the early formula in Mark 14:24 is closely related to Paul’s citation of another early pre-Pauline tradition on the same topic in 1 Cor 11:23–26. In fact, Paul specifically states here that this rendition came from the Lord. Further, the apostle claims he received these teachings at an even earlier date than his preaching and writing to the Corinthians. Critical scholars almost uniformly hold that Paul is here citing a creedal tradition that extends back to the very earliest church. For instance, Ulrich Wilckens declares, “The material collected here indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.”80 It is possible that the version that Mark cites in 14:24 could be equally early,81 but whether or not this is the case, the main point being made here is Hengel’s argument that Mark 10:45 and 14:45 are the Greek creedal forms that ultimately extend back to Jesus’s own teaching.

But as we saw, Sloyan comments that we just do not know what anyone earlier than Paul thought about the topic of the atonement. But this is surely mistaken, for if all we had were Paul’s citations of the early traditions in 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3–8 alone (also usually dated to the early 30s),82 we would still know that these primary atonement texts predate Paul, and as it turns out, by perhaps even one to two decades before Paul’s earliest epistle. From just these two texts alone, we have Paul’s citation of these earlier creeds, and we must not forget his declaration that the first one went back to Jesus himself.

Further, what Hengel takes to be essentially the content of Jesus’s own teaching in two more traditional statements in Mark 10:45 and 14:24 is also crucial. These four texts from Paul and Mark combine to make a seemingly insurmountable case for the pre-Pauline teaching of Jesus’s sacrificial death as well as a strong case for tracing that doctrine back to Jesus. We occupy a strong foundation here.

Many other highly influential critical researchers seem to agree with Hengel’s assessment here. One such scholar, Jürgen Moltmann, also affirms that the view of vicarious atonement comes from “very early” in Christianity, as Jesus Christ’s passion and death are at the center of the Christian message.83 For G. B. Caird, modern persons have a difficult time with the notion of sacrifice due to its foreignness. “For Jesus, however, sacrifice was a vital concept.”84 Ben Meyer affirms that “Jesus himself offered numerous clues to his view of the human dilemma. The expiatory motif in the ransom-word (Mark 10:45/Matt 20:28) and the eucharistic words (Mark 14:24/Matt 26:28) allows us to infer that an inevitable state of sin and death constituted the human problem.”85

Gerald O’Collins has much to say on this subject, sometimes in considerable detail. Jesus did indeed think of his death as “a saving event.”86 In particular, the pre-Pauline traditions “abundantly” indicate “that Jesus’ crucifixion was a death ‘for us’ which representatively atoned for human sin.” But the best indication that this widespread atonement teaching was in the church at a very early date is that the doctrine goes back to Jesus himself.87 As far as the meaning of the statement that Jesus died for others, O’Collins thinks that “various levels” can be delineated. These include (1) “a saving, beneficial value for others”; (2) Jesus “death atones for and rescues sinners”; (3) Jesus died for our sins as “the Messiah himself.”88

As Hengel brings his own informed study to a close, he asks the question regarding the origin of the atonement message.89 Against those who taught a few decades ago that the message of atonement developed later in the church rather than at its origin,90 Hengel argues (along with other scholars such as those listed above) that the doctrine is plainly found without question in the pre-Pauline creedal statements. After mentioning several of these, Hengel contends further with the statement we cited above that bears repeating here: that these teachings go back from the pre-Pauline creeds to Jesus himself, as “Jesus wanted to prepare the way for the coming of the kingdom of God through his sacrificial death.”91

What, then, is the significance of Jesus’s death—where do the data lie?92 If the assessment here is correct, it depends on whether one takes the predominantly conservative-moderate option, or the liberal-skeptical option, or something in between. It is clearly the case that the idea of Jesus’s atoning death was a central doctrine in the very earliest church. Numerous authors conclude that the latest possible point of origin for this belief would be the time of the pre-Pauline creedal traditions, which is exceptionally early.93

But some of these same authors do not always answer the chief question that we have been asking, as to whether or not they think the doctrine extends back beyond these early confessions to Jesus himself. Still, we have seen that numerous researchers mentioned here have concluded that. Paul Barnett, like Hengel and O’Collins, is another scholar who states quite clearly that the very best way to account for the importance and centrality of these ideas that combine Jesus’s death with atonement in the earliest church is that Jesus himself was the originator of these teachings.94

Conclusion

The chief purpose of this chapter was a straightforward one: not to repeat the material from the minimal fact chapter on Jesus’s resurrection, but to survey the field of contemporary researchers mostly in the areas of New Testament and theology for the answers to several questions surrounding the death of Jesus by crucifixion. Do these researchers think that the crucifixion of Jesus was a historical fact? What are some preliminary considerations on when this event should be dated? We already detailed the cause of Jesus’s death in the previous chapter, but how do those who research in the general area of the New Testament think he died? Why was he executed? What is the significance of Jesus’s death?

Just as a brief reminder, this overall chapter served as part two of the minimal facts criteria regarding our first historical fact: the crucifixion of Jesus. Having laid a solid historical and medical foundation for the fact and cause of the event itself in the previous chapter, we were chiefly interested here in overviewing where many scholars were on this fact. Amazingly, even though we largely surveyed only the views of skeptical scholars in this chapter, there was still an incredible amount of unanimity on the fact of Jesus’s death by crucifixion.

But as we noted carefully above, only the first section of this chapter on the facticity of Jesus’s death was part of our minimal facts argument, hence it was the only area where the virtual agreement of critical scholars was necessary. Throughout the remainder of the chapter, the questions that we surveyed were only for the sake of attaining an overview of a few related issues pertaining to Jesus’s death.

We saw that the scholarly responses to the last two issues we surveyed, namely, why Jesus was executed and the significance of his death, largely depended on the theological inclinations of the respondents. In other words, as we so often observe, worldview proclivities often trump the facts. Frankly, with the major studies that have emerged in recent years on the shape of the very earliest Christology,95 the conservative aspects of these two questions have received a huge boost. This is especially so with regard to the question of Jesus’s deity relative to how he perceived himself.96

Notes

1 Ehrman, New Testament, 233 (see chap. 4, n. 34). Concerning his own personal viewpoint, Ehrman specifies: “I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings.” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 5 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

2 Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 145; cf. 154, 196, 201, as well as chap. 6, n. 44.

3 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 372; cf. 372–75 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

4 Marcus Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 179; cf. the context of this comment here, 178–84 (see chap. 2, n. 32).

5 Vermes, Resurrection, 2 (see chap. 5, n. 14).

6 Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism, 3 (see chap. 5, n. 11).

7 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 230 (see chap. 1, n. 18).

8 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 84; cf. 8 (see chap. 6, n. 129).

9 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 32; cf. 34 (see chap. 5, n. 7).

10 Funk, 220.

11 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 17 (see chap. 1, n. 41).

12 Far more examples could be produced here. Peter Stuhlmacher argues for the reliability of the Gospel crucifixion accounts; see Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1998), 14. Traugott Holtz thinks that one of the few things we can be sure about regarding the historical Jesus is the place and type of death that he suffered, as per Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhältnis zwischen historisch-philologisher Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verstandnis,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 5. James D. G. Dunn attests, “That Jesus was crucified on the direct authority of Pilate himself need not be doubted for a minute.” Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 775 (see chap. 1, n. 3). John Meier asserts that “just about any quester for the historical Jesus—could agree that Jesus ‘was crucified under Pontius Pilate and suffered death.’” See Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:10 (see chap. 1, n. 27). E. P. Sanders states that Jesus’s execution by Pilate is a fact that is “almost beyond dispute.” See Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 10–11, cf. 280 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Jürgen Moltmann states, “Jesus was crucified publicly and died publicly. . . . Those are the relatively well-attested historical facts.” See Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 74 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Hans Küng states that the death of Jesus can be historically verified; see Küng, On Being a Christian, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 349. Luke Timothy Johnson notes that we can know with “the highest degree of probability” that Jesus was “executed by Roman authority in Palestine.” Johnson, “Learning the Human Jesus,” 159; see also 160, and chap. 1, n. 3. Helmut Koester reports that it is certain that Jesus died by crucifixion. See Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 84 (see chap. 4, n. 47). In spite of his agnosticism regarding the resurrection, A. J. M. Wedderburn thinks that Jesus’s death by crucifixion is very probable, in Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 4–5 (see chap. 1, n. 42). John A. T. Robinson definitely opts for the facticity of crucifixion, in Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 114–20, 127 (chap. 1, n. 43). Walter Kasper proclaims that “the execution of Jesus of Nazareth on a cross is among the most securely established facts of his life.” Kaspar, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1977), 113. Skeptic John Shelby Spong states forthrightly that Jesus’s crucifixion is a fact; see Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 240–41, 255. Stephen Davis thinks that “virtually all scholars who write about the resurrection of Jesus, whether they believe it happened (in some sense or other) or not, agree that . . . Jesus of Nazareth died and was buried.” Davis, Risen Indeed, 180–81; see also 15, cf. 171 (see chap. 1, n. 16). George Ladd thinks that the details surrounding Jesus’s death make it one of the certain historical facts about his life; see Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 93, 132. For Craig Evans, “one of the most significant areas of consensus” among scholars today is that “virtually all agree” regarding the historicity of the crucifixion. Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 34 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Gerard Sloyan judges that “there seems to be little reason to doubt” the fact of Jesus’s death by crucifixion; see Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 9; also 1, 43, 212. Charles Perry agrees with so many others that “even most skeptics” accept the historicity of Jesus’s crucifixion as a fact, in Perry, The Resurrection Promise (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 4. For those interested in this sort of comment, even a radical nonspecialist like Tim Callahan states, “Personally, I have no doubt that Jesus . . . was put to death by crucifixion.” Callahan, The Secret Origins of the Bible (Altadena, CA: Millennium, 2002), 419; similarly, 370.

13 John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 166. In discussing the historical question of why Jesus died, Carroll and Green state, “Historical scholarship arises out of the virtual certainty of Jesus’ execution by means of crucifixion (21).

14 Bass, Bedrock of Christianity, 91–110 (see chap. 4, n. 85).

15 It should be noted very carefully, so as not to remove us overly far from our minimal facts approach, that the methodology that we have set forward at the beginning of this study does not include any further conclusions regarding the remainder of the questions in this chapter. In other words, aspects such as the likely date of the crucifixion, why Jesus was executed, or the significance of his death are not a part of either the Minimal Facts or the larger list of historical data we originally mentioned. We are simply responding to some key, oft-asked questions in the remainder of this chapter, again, to emphasize sort of a scholarly “lay of the land.” So the lack of scholarly agreement on some of these additional issues from this point on in the chapter does not impinge whatsoever on the requirement of there being virtual agreement from critical scholars on the actual minimal facts themselves, because these remaining issues are simply not a part of those lists.

16 Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 91–92, 101, 111; Weber, Cross: Tradition and Interpretation, 26–27 (see chap. 9, n. 103).

17 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1350–78; the quotation is on 1376 (see chap. 4, n. 40).

18 John Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50 (1996): 369.

19 Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary behind the Church’s Conservative Icon (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 11. They also date Jesus’s birth from approximately 4 BCE. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 128 (see chap. 2, n. 19); Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 84, cf. 8; Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 251; Hengel, Atonement, 1 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” in Jesus under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 29; Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 1, 11; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 223, 318n174 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Donald Goergen, The Death and Resurrection of Jesus: A Theology of Jesus (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 35. Cf. Ehrman, New Testament, 43–44; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 90 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 251 (see chap. 2, n. 15). If the earliest Christian events are dated AD 31–32 (251) and Paul was converted in 32–33 (246), then Jesus could not have been crucified in 33, so Ehrman himself must prefer AD 30.

20 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 283–90.

21 Dale C. Allison, Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 50n85, 23.

22 For Paul Maier, see “Sejanus, Pilate, and the Date of the Crucifixion,” Church History 37 (1968): 3–13. For Hoehner and Barnett, see the sources below.

23 This includes all three authors, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Justin Taylor, and Alexander Stewart, in The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 27.

24 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 24–25 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

25 Barnett opts for placing Paul’s conversion in AD 34; see Barnett, 26.

26 As dated by the inscription from Delphi, published in 1905.

27 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 24–26, cf. 7–9.

28 Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1978), 102–3. New Testament chronology was a lifelong pursuit for Hoehner, who had already done much work on this and related topics before this book. This includes a series of journal articles in Bibliotheca Sacra out of which this volume grew, his first unpublished doctoral dissertation, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age” (ThD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965), and his volume Herod Antipas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

29 Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, esp. chap. 5.

30 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 9.

31 Hengel, Crucifixion, 25, 28 (see chap. 6, n. 57); Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 25n10.

32 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 509; also 511.

33 Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 166.

34 James D. G. Dunn, “Response to John Dominic Crossan,” in Beilby and Eddy, Historical Jesus, 146–47. As a related aside to this comment, Dunn remarks that today’s church needs to recover the sense of total commitment that so characterized the early church. On this last angle, see Dunn’s volume Jesus’ Call to Discipleship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

35 Cook, Crucifixion, xxxv, cf. also 451 (see chap. 6, n. 57).

36 Hengel, Crucifixion, 25, 31–32; Sloyan agrees here in Crucifixion of Jesus, 17, as does Küng, On Being a Christian, 333. Cook includes an array of sources for the use of nails versus ropes or other means; see Crucifixion, 95, 98, 190, 194, 195, 197, 243, 293, 425–26, 430–32, 451, with 425n45 documenting a list of nails versus ropes, with the former being far more common. Almost a century ago, Joseph William Hewitt argued against the presence of nails in “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion,” Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932): 29–45. When compared to Cook’s highly detailed study mentioned in this footnote, the closing line in Hewitt’s last paragraph is easily out of place: “To sum up, there is astonishingly little evidence that the feet of a crucified person were ever pierced by nails” (45). Dale Allison is surely correct when he states concerning Hewitt’s case that “his argument . . . is specious,” in Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Criticism, History (London: Bloomsbury, 2021), 105n74, which is quoted from Allison’s own earlier work, Resurrecting Jesus, 361n633 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

37 For some of the details and discussions here, see the ongoing evaluations in Nicu Haas, “Anthropological Observations,” 38–59; Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs,” 18–32 (see chap. 9, n. 79); Vilhelm Moller-Christenson later confirmed Haas’s account in a subsequent journal article; Moller-Christensen, “Skeletal Remains,” 35–38 (see chap. 6, n. 164). Cf. also Hans-Ruedi Weber, Cross (see chap. 9, n. 103), though Moller-Christensen, Tzaferis, and Weber were all written before the influential follow-up evaluation by Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” 22–27 (see chap. 6, n. 164). Maslen and Mitchell in their article “Medical Theories,” 186–87 (see chap. 9, n. 61), supported the latter conclusions of Zias and Sekeles.

38 Killgrove, “Line on the Left” (see chap. 9, n. 70). Though published too recently to report on a final verdict here, see also Gualdi-Russo et al., “Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy,” 1–9 (see chap. 9, n. 70); cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 463–74, who is more skeptical here.

39 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

40 Tabor, 219.

41 Carroll and Green, Death of Jesus, 168.

42 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 135 (see chap. 6, n. 151). As noted, Crossan dates the account of the apostle Andrew’s martyrdom to earlier than AD 200. However, M. R. James, the editor and translator of The Apocryphal New Testament (see chap. 9, n. 101), thinks that it is a third-century document, from approximately 260. In all fairness to Crossan, however, a lot has happened in New Testament scholarship over the last century and ideas on the dating of this work could well have changed too.

43 N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 33.

44 Pheme Perkins, “Reconciling the Resurrection: The Central Act of Christian Faith,” Commonweal 112 (1985): 203.

45 Zias and Sekeles, “Crucified Man,” 26.

46 Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 17.

47 Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 33–34.

48 Weber, Cross, 6–7.

49 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1188–92. Also interestingly, Brown was more up-to-date on the research regarding the crucifixion victim Jehohanan (1176), whereas Tabor still presented some of the older views in Jesus Dynasty, 218–20. Like Tabor, Fitzmyer also thought that Jehohanan’s legs were broken, but it should be noted that Fitzmyer wrote his article in 1978, before the later corrective research by Zias and Sekeles (1985) and by Charlesworth and Zias (1992). See Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine,” 508.

50 For just a couple of examples mentioned in the previous chapter, see Maslen and Mitchell, “Medical Theories,” 186–87, as well as Cook, Crucifixion, 434–35.

51 For prominent German New Testament scholar Peter Stuhlmacher, there are several major elements here. In Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu, Stuhlmacher discusses some of these reasons in a fairly lengthy section on Jesus’s death (9–45). Besides what Jesus claimed about himself (as discussed immediately below), another offensive teaching for some in his day was the connection between Jesus’s death and the forgiveness of sins, as the early Christian creed in 1 Cor 15:3–4 proclaims (see also the early tradition in Rom 4:24–25). Stuhlmacher refers here to Jesus’s “ransom death” (33–34). Incidentally, Stuhlmacher also includes some brief statements regarding the reliability of the death accounts (14), including archaeological indications (15–16).

52 This would involve particularly the groundbreaking research by the likes of Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, Martin Hengel, and James D. G. Dunn. But there is also the excellent and relevant work being published by a host of other strong scholars, such as N. T. Wright, Craig A. Evans, Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington, Simon Gathercole, Craig Keener, Michael Bird, Craig Blomberg, Charles Hill, and Chris Tilling, along with still others. We will not provide the relevant sources until later, so as not to divert the discussion here. But the specific works will be mentioned throughout, some of them immediately below in this chapter. It should not be assumed that all these researchers would necessarily want to be identified as “conservatives.”

53 Brown, New Testament Christology, 96 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

54 Craig A. Evans, “In What Sense ‘Blasphemy’? Jesus before Caiaphas in Mark 14:61–64,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991): 221, 222, respectively.

55 N. T. Wright, “Looking Again for Jesus,” Stimulus 4 (1996): 34–35.

56 Ben Witherington III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 258–61.

57 Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53–65 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 222–25. Still other major scholarship should be mentioned in this context as well, such as many of the major essays found in the volume edited by Michael F. Bird, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart Ehrman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014). Some of these themes include Bird, “The Story of Jesus and the Story of God,” 19; Bird, “Did Jesus Think He Was God?,” 70; Simon J. Gathercole, “What Did the First Christians Think about Jesus?,” 99–102, 111; Chris Tilling, “Misreading Paul’s Christology: Problems with Ehrman’s Exegesis,” 146; Bird, “Concluding Thoughts,” especially 202–3 for a crucial summary.

58 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 212.

59 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 179 (emphasis added); cf. 178–84.

60 N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 89–91.

61 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 221, 229.

62 Richard A. Horsley, “The Death of Jesus,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 405–8, 414.

63 E. P. Sanders, The Human Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 13.

64 Sloyan, Crucifixion of Jesus, 31, also 20–21, 27, 32, 37, cf. 40.

65 N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 551–52.

66 Craig L. Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?,” 21.

67 Dunn, “Response to John Dominic Crossan,” 146–47.

68 Very strange to the ears of some scholars is the Jesus Seminar’s explicit rule that we should “beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you.” This is especially the case when the Seminar appears to largely embrace the Jesus who is the enlightened, liberal-thinking, egalitarian individual described above that seems to align so closely with their own wishes. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 5.

69 Although we wish to be exceptionally clear that the “New Atheists” of recent years may have very little to do with the liberal or skeptical scholars with whom we are interacting here, a version of the New Atheist complaint regarding the atonement is that by Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Warner, 2007), 108–110.

70 Hence, this does not mean there is unanimity even on the central issues within these very general camps, and sometimes on the same questions. Rather, the results can be far from unanimous. For a major example of some potential differences on the issue of the atonement between world-class scholars, see N. T. Wright, Simon Gathercole, and Robert B. Stewart, eds.,What Did the Cross Accomplish? A Conversation about the Atonement (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2021).

71 Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 90, 104.

72 Borg, “An Appreciative Disagreement,” in Jesus and the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 237–38.

73 Borg and Wright, Meaning of Jesus, 137–42.

74 Borg, “Appreciative Disagreement,” 239.

75 Gerard S. Sloyan, “Recent Literature on the Trial Narratives of the Four Gospels,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University, 1979), 68–71.

76 Hengel, Atonement, 31 (see chap. 6, n. 86).

77 Hengel, 31–32.

78 Hengel, 71–72. The contemporary situation regarding whether critical scholars think Jesus could have predicted his upcoming violent death and even possibly his resurrection from the dead has changed significantly since Hengel wrote these words in 1981. For example, see Michael R. Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, especially 284–302, 469; see also Licona, “Did Jesus Predict His Death and Vindication/Resurrection?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8 (2010): 47–66.

79 Hengel, Atonement, 34.

80 Wilckens, Resurrection, 2 (see chap. 8, n. 17). Later Wilckens adds, “Paul quotes . . . verbally a version reaching back to the earliest period in the history of Christianity” (15).

81 In fact, Wilckens links Mark 14:24 with 1 Cor 11:23 more than once (53, 71–72).

82 We will comment on these texts at length later in this study.

83 Jürgen Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 40, 42; also “Resurrection of Christ,” 151 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

84 G. B. Caird and L. D. Hurst, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 411.

85 Ben F. Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 22.

86 Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus: Introducing Catholic Theology (London: Chapman, 1983), 88.

87 O’Collins, 92.

88 O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 121–22, (see chap. 1, n. 19).

89 Hengel, Atonement, 65. As an aside, Hengel’s previous volume, Crucifixion (1977), seems to lead directly to his work Atonement (1981), as he concludes the prior study with a list of what we can know about Jesus’s death. Of his ten summary items in that earlier study, the last two deal specifically with the subject of Atonement, almost as if he knew that he was going to turn from the historical question to the issue of theological significance. See Hengel, Crucifixion, 88–90.

90 Rudolf Bultmann presents some intriguing give-and-take in his Theology of the New Testament, 1:46, 85–86 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

91 Hengel, Atonement, 65–75, cf. 34–39. The quotation is from 72.

92 As per its title, most of the discussion in this excursus has centered on the scholarly views. Still, some of the foundation for these scholarly positions has been expressed as well, and the latter topic of the data is also treated later in this study.

93 Some related thoughts along these lines include Johnson, Living Jesus, 82–83, 96, 108 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Donald Senior, “Crucible of Truth: Passion and Resurrection in the Gospel of Mark,” in Reginald H. Fuller et al., The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1985), 24; Weber, Cross, 58; Joost Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 184; Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1984), 171–75.

94 Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), esp. 161. Barnett favors the most popular recent thesis that the Gospels are written more or less in the tradition of the Greco-Roman bios or biography (see particularly chap. 8). But then he argues that the death of Jesus differs from the normal sequence of death found in the Greco-Roman bioi. He provides three major differences: (1) The death of Jesus is the central portion of the entire Gospel story. From start to finish, the fact that Jesus is going to die is the whole or chief reason for his living. (2) Jesus dies by crucifixion, an “unmentionable mode of execution” which is “the ultimate and monstrous deterrent” to his message being heard, especially when this death was often reserved for slaves and criminals. Thus, Jesus was not like one of the ancient heroes who died gloriously. (3) The place given throughout the Gospels to Jesus’s death is exceptional, especially in that it consumes by far the largest chunk of the Gospel accounts (160–61).

95 A few highly celebrated research specialists in recent years are frequently thought to be in a league by themselves on these topics and have even been referred to as the “Early, High Christology Club.” For this title, see Michael F. Bird, “The Story of Jesus as the Story of God,” in Bird, How God Became Jesus, 13–16. Those who are most frequently included among these scholars are often listed as Hengel, Hurtado, Bauckham, and sometimes Dunn. The two best volumes for the latter topics in this chapter certainly must include Larry Hurtado’s monumental work, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), which culminated decades of specialized study on the topic, and Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Dunn has also written several major works that bear on these subjects too, such as Jesus Remembered, plus another volume with a little different perspective from that of the other scholars above: Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010). Incidentally on the theme in this footnote, Dunn dedicates this second text here “To Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado, partners in dialogue.” Other volumes by Hurtado and Bauckham, also highly relevant, include Hurtado’s How on Earth (see chap. 9, n. 32) and One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 2nd ed. (London: T&T Clark, 1998). Bauckham’s earlier volume, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), is also included as the first chapter in his Jesus and the God of Israel.

96 Besides the scholars above and their works, many other well-researched books and publications on both the deity of Jesus Christ and the earliest Christology have also appeared from other authors. These include Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); Peter Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth—Christ of Faith, trans. Siegfried S. Shatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988); Witherington, Christology of Jesus; Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation; J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006); Marshall, Origins of New Testament Christology (see chap. 8, n. 19), and a number of remarkable chapters in Bird, How God Became Jesus, some of which have already been mentioned.

10

Minimal Fact 2: The Disciples’ Experiences

This is unquestionably one of the most crucial chapters in this lengthy study. The very center of the New Testament Gospel message is that Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to his followers afterwards. The heart of the minimal facts argument as well is that after his death by crucifixion, Jesus’s disciples had real experiences that they at least believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. In an exceptionally well-known pre-Pauline comment, the apostle Paul phrased it this way:

I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Afterwards, Paul added, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Cor 15:3–8 NRSV).

The matter could be stated this way: the sources claim that Jesus’s actual death was witnessed. Jesus’s body was observed being buried, though even without this step, the witnessed resurrection appearances follow as long as Jesus was alive and was observed after his death. The best evidence indicates that Jesus was seen often after his demise and that these events occurred privately with individuals as well as several times with groups of onlookers. The records also report that the risen Jesus was observed by men and women alike, indoors and outdoors, during both the daytime as well as the nighttime, by some unbelievers as well as by others who doubted. Some sources add that the risen Jesus was even touched and observed to eat.

Do these reports hold up under scrutiny? The most popular of the natural comebacks plus many lesser-known and even obscure alternatives will be posed and addressed in great detail throughout the entire second volume of this study. What remains then, is to identify and examine the evidence regarding the disciples’ experiences.

The Disciples’ Experiencing Appearances of the Risen Jesus: The Evidence

More than any other aspects of Jesus’s life, scholars generally agree that two of the central, best-evidenced events during this time were probably that Jesus’s central message pertained to the kingdom of God,1 and that he later died by crucifixion.2 That shortly afterward his followers at least concluded and proclaimed that Jesus had appeared to them again after his death ranks with these other two facts in the amount of widespread critical attestation.3 The relation between Jesus’s death and his claimed appearances will be treated more clearly in that they constitute the target at which we are aiming.

According to the Gospels, certain persons at the end of Jesus’s life were eyewitnesses of both his death and his burial, and this word then spread quickly to many others who learned about the shocking events that had transpired. A much greater number of witnesses claimed that they had seen Jesus alive after his death, both alone and in groups. Throughout many key chapters in this study it has been evidenced well beyond any fair standards of research that Jesus plainly died by crucifixion. So, in brief, after his death and interment, was Jesus ever actually seen again? Answering this question is the goal of this chapter, so we proceed with a study of the data.

New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown once noted regarding the state of Jesus research: “In the third quarter of the 20th century there was a shift to a position more conservative than that of Bultmann.”4 Without much question, the emergence of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus was an enormous impetus here.5 One crucial aspect that fueled this research, as noted by Brown plus Wright and Neill, included the early pre-Pauline creeds, traditions, or confessions embedded within the New Testament texts. Another mainstay of the more recent research, though not without its detractors, is the application of historical criteria or tests to the New Testament, such as multiple independent attestation, early and/or eyewitness texts, discontinuity, embarrassment, and so on.6 Within each of these categories there are various nuances and subcategories.

Though the larger subject is treated in much more detail later in this volume, many examples of both the early creedal traditions as well as the application of the historical criteria will be presented here, along with a large number of additional largely historical considerations. The hope is to shed light that points in the direction of the original disciples’ post-crucifixion experiences.

Pre-Pauline Creedal Sources and Sermon Summaries7

The first two considerations that favor Jesus’s actual resurrection appearances of some sort are indicated by both the content and provenance of the creedal reports, plus the exceptionally early time frame that predates the New Testament writings.8 Contemporary critical scholars provide nearly uniform recognition that these numerous traditions existed, with many located almost exclusively in the Epistles, though they were earlier than the Letters themselves.9 These brief, originally oral reports most frequently present central theological doctrines, sermon snippets, songs, prayers, and formulas from early teaching and worship contexts. These informational comments help address exciting subjects, such as what the earliest church actually taught, preached, believed, and practiced before the emergence of the first books that became known later as the New Testament canon. These confessions serve as windows that allow contemporary readers to catch some glimpses of the earliest Christian content.10

The earlier detailed analyses in this study on the nature, provenance, and worth of these New Testament creedal statements cannot be duplicated in this chapter. However, their evidential value is indicated primarily by the exceptional earliness of these proclamations and will chiefly be considered in the next two chapters, along with the cognate issue of whether or not these comments can in any way be tested and traced, either directly or indirectly, to the teaching of the original apostles. This last question constitutes a crucial consideration in this chapter.

The 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 Creedal Report

By far the most vital creedal passage for our consideration is 1 Cor 15:3–7,11 since it provides the earliest, most authoritative, and most detailed list of Jesus Christ’s resurrection appearances in a single text, all delivered “as of first importance.”12 Other examples of these early traditions that mention Jesus’s appearances include Luke 24:34, along with a significant subcategory of early texts taken from the sermon summaries found several places in Acts.13 Other major creedal texts that enjoy much agreement and attention from critical scholars include Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23–26; Phil 2:6–11; 1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 1 Tim 3:16; and 1 Pet 3:18–22.14

In terms of our purposes, the chief benefit of these creedal texts is at least twofold. First, not to spoil the next chapter, but to evaluate the strength of 1 Cor 15:3–7, it must be announced quite often that these creedal texts are exceptionally early,15 with many of them most likely dating within the first ten years after the crucifixion. Some of these traditions likely date even earlier, from only one to three years after the crucifixion, as recognized by a number of very critical scholars. This initial mention here will await the many backup details in the next two chapters. For now, it is enough to state Bauckham’s firm conclusion regarding this initial point: “All scholars recognize here an early tradition that was formulated even before Paul’s own call to be an apostle (to which he refers in v. 8).”16

Second, the earliest creedal examples, such as 1 Cor 15:3–7 in particular (or at the very least the factual details contained within this text), most likely originated from the Jewish climate in Jerusalem, where it came from the most influential apostles themselves—the eyewitnesses—as we will argue in this chapter. These are bombastic comments but are supported strongly by the data. But if these two observations here obtain, namely, that many of the major creedal traditions such as 1 Cor 15:3–7 are both very early and that they originated in the eyewitness apostolic environment in Jerusalem, then this would be a huge mountain to climb for any scholars who wish to dismiss the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, particularly if there is also an absence of viable naturalistic hypotheses. The entire positive case that makes up this study concentrates largely on these areas, as a brief treatment here will indicate.

What factual confirmation exists for this double conclusion? We will return in the next chapter primarily to review the early date for 1 Cor 15:3–7 and view some other early traditions, but the basic outline follows. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus occurred some two or three years after the crucifixion, most likely dating this occurrence between AD 32 to 33.17 Three years later he visited Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with the apostles Peter and James the brother of Jesus (1:18–20). This places Paul in Jerusalem with these two apostles at about 35 or 36, or just five or six years after Jesus’s death.

The Greek that Paul employs in Gal 1:18 to describe the nature of his visit to Peter (historēsai Kēphān) and James the brother of the Lord (ei mē Iakōbon ton adelphon tou Kuriou) is highly instructive. Multiple critical word studies of the first aorist infinitive of historeō (from the noun histōr) indicate that Paul went to Jerusalem to “investigate” or to “inquire” of the other two apostles to obtain knowledge and/or information. These terms were used by many major Greek writers who applied these words to the writing of history somewhere between the times of Herodotus and Aristotle. Friedrich Büchsel argues in his intricate research that this sense of writing history is carried over into the oral creedal traditions in the New Testament.18 Different nuances within this same or similar range of definitions are emphasized by various contemporary researchers, with the gaining of the knowledge that Peter and James could supply forming a sort of “baseline” meaning of what occurred here.19

What topics might have interested Paul in terms of the knowledge or information that he wished to receive from Peter and James? In the opening verse in the Epistle, Paul states that he had been sent to the churches in Galatia “by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (1:1–2). The ensuing theme of the book centers on the gospel message that Paul had preached to the Galatians, referring to it repeatedly, either directly or indirectly, almost a dozen times in the first few verses of this book (especially 1:6–12). This gospel was under siege from false teachers (1:6–9; 2:5, 14; 3:1–3; 5:4, 7). The specific issues raised in the discussion are beyond our immediate purpose here,20 but suffice it to say that at least included in the discussion as of central importance here are Paul’s ideas on the absolutely crucial nature of apostolic agreement regarding the gospel content and message, including the need for faith in the crucified and risen Lord and Son of God, Jesus Christ, instead of obedience to the Old Testament law (1:1; 2:2, 16, 19–21; 3:1–3).

Not only is Gal 2:19–21 often identified as the central theme in the book of Galatians (cf. the opening salvo in 1:1), but Paul sought and received the agreement of the “pillar” apostles on his gospel message a few verses earlier in 2:1–10. So it would be absolutely incredible and inexplicable, then, if sometime during their fifteen-day visit, Paul had never asked Peter and James regarding the factual gospel message pertaining to Jesus’s death and resurrection, particularly when so many of the creeds that Paul cites elsewhere contain these exact doctrines at their heart (such as Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9; 1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–7). One can imagine Paul asking: “How did the crucifixion affect you fellows? Peter, after your denials, how did Jesus look on that first resurrection morning? James, how long did it take you to believe after you saw that your brother had indeed risen from the dead? Did you both touch the risen Lord? Here’s how the risen Christ appeared to me on the road to Damascus and halted me in my tracks from persecuting the church.”

Further, if the predominant critical view today is correct (as detailed in this chapter) that there is good reason to conclude that Paul probably received the creedal message or its content in 1 Cor 15:3–7 from these same two apostles at this first meeting about AD 35–36, then there would seem to be a strong possibility that Paul would have inquired from Peter and James concerning even further details regarding the events of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Increasing this likelihood somewhat is that the names of these two senior apostles are the only proper names contained in this particular tradition, though that certainly does not prove the issue by itself. Since this early creed recounts Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and his appearances and identifies this message as being “of first importance,” this gospel communication could hardly have been received without an additional discussion. These events should have been discussed at the very head of the list!21 Allison is among the numerous scholars who clearly agree with this sort of reasoning.22

Many very influential critical researchers today (including a number of skeptics) more or less agree with the chief content of these previous points, thereby holding that the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3 and following,23 or at least the subject matter itself, was actually pre-Pauline in the stricter sense of its having been in existence even before Paul’s conversion. Thus, even before Paul’s experience on his way to Damascus, this confession, or at the very least its contents, appears to have been used by believers.24 Ehrman adds a strong comment on this subject of Paul’s visiting Peter and James in Jerusalem: “I simply want to point out that this visit is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions that he refers to.”25

But even if Paul did not procure this precise creed on this occasion, it is even better established that Paul at least heard and ascertained the crucial historical points within it regarding Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, and postresurrection appearances.26 Reminding his readers of an important angle on the gathering of this information, Allison states that, at the very least, “we can be assured” that since he visited Jerusalem so early and spoke in some detail with Peter and James, Paul’s tradition (quoting Eduard Schweizer) “can, at least, not contradict what he heard then.” Allison thinks that even beyond Peter and James, we may presume Paul also met “others who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. First Corinthians 15:3–8 is not folklore.”27

The accredited sequence so far is that Paul converted to the Christian faith about two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Three years later, in AD 35–36, he visited Jerusalem and met for fifteen days with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. While there, Paul inquired of these two men who were apostles before him, desiring (in his own words) to investigate, or at the least to gain knowledge, concerning Jesus.

Thus, it is generally accepted that Paul probably received the renowned 1 Corinthians 15 creed in this Jerusalem visit. But to repeat an absolutely essential item, the exact time of Paul’s more formal creedal reception is not as vital as Paul’s learning the knowledge within the factual content from that early date, which even far fewer scholars question. So the centermost creedal content was well-known and well preserved from very soon after Jesus’s crucifixion. As Paul himself remarks later, the other apostles (of whom Peter and James are specifically named, along with the group as a whole) were preaching the very same message as he was regarding Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection appearances. The bottom line is that any of these apostles could be consulted to hear this gospel message firsthand (1 Cor 15:9–11).

But there is even more to the overall scenario here. Peter, James, and all of the other apostles of course knew this testimony before the Jerusalem meeting with Paul, since they had witnessed it with their very own eyes, which predates its formalization into the tradition. Then the creed was crystalized and arranged into its pattern, a process which Dunn dates at just months after the cross,28 and Kasper dates to probably AD 30.29 Working back through these steps places us on top of the historical events themselves. As has been expressed throughout this study, though history like other inductive studies does not provide proof, the case for this original testimony being observed, preached, standardized, and then passed every step of the way from the original witnesses to others is solidly established from immediately after the original events.

This is apparently what moved Ehrman, the non-Christian New Testament specialist who was describing the central Christian message, to name Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Gal 1:18 as one of the two key pieces of data in putting together early church history. Ehrman quips concerning Paul’s discussions with Peter and James: “These are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus. I wish I knew them.”30 What an amazingly thoughtful comment! Then Ehrman adds just one page later, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” The apostle “Paul knew Jesus’ closest disciple and his own brother.”31

It was not just that Paul converted and testified that he was himself an eyewitness to the risen Jesus or that he also knew other resurrection eyewitnesses. Beyond his conversion due to an appearance from the risen Jesus, Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem (including the second one, fourteen years later, where the apostle John was also present; see Gal 2:1–10) were probably the most crucial elements that this apostle bequeathed to Christianity. It is impossible to overestimate the import of these two trips regarding their contribution to the early Christian cause. Peter, James, and John (in the second visit) were the leaders of the other apostles and were the very best sources that Paul or anyone else could have interviewed or otherwise spoken with at that time. And with one voice these four, along with the other apostles, all proclaimed that they had seen the resurrected Jesus along with other individuals as well as groups (1 Cor 15:11; cf. Gal 2:6, 9)!

This is a tighter historical argument than might be expected! In fact, Ehrman maps out a similar timeline more than once,32 and it is quite comparable to the one in this study, which has also been published elsewhere.33 In his citation above, Ehrman remarked as we just saw that the testimony gained by Paul via his interviews with the major disciples was decently close to eyewitness testimony.

Rather intriguingly, the Jesus Seminar provides a somewhat similar explanation to that of Ehrman. They rate and color in red Paul’s eyewitness comments that he believed that he had actually seen the risen Jesus—indicating that the report of Paul’s experiences is “virtually certain.”34 On the other hand, the appearance to Peter was only marked as pink (their definition: “probably reliable”) because it is reported in the pre-Pauline material, which was in turn recorded by Paul, thereby implying that they probably would have designated Peter’s experience as red too, if the appropriate words were Peter’s own.35 Further, besides Peter and Paul, Mary Magdalene (plus any other women?) all “had at least one visionary religious experience of Jesus after his death.”36 Somewhat like Ehrman, the Jesus Seminar also produces a number of explanatory comments that could be arranged in an outline.37

1 Corinthians 15:3–7 and the Eyewitnesses

Our last question pertaining more directly to this particular early tradition follows quite directly: Given the foregoing arguments for the early nature of this material, should the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7 plus any of the other New Testament material discussed above be considered as apostolic and eyewitness in nature? In other words, what may be the strongest string of reasons that apparently shows that this particular early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, or at least its individual component facts in addition to a few other considerations, predated Paul’s conversion and originated with at least some of the Jerusalem apostles, primarily Peter and James? These apostles indeed claimed to have had experiences that they and others undeniably thought were resurrection appearances, both individually as well as in groups. We will address later the issue of what they saw. But it is almost impossible to deny that at least several if not all of Jesus’s apostles were utterly convinced that they had really, truly witnessed appearances of their risen Lord.38

For starters, even the comments immediately above by both Ehrman as well as the Jesus Seminar indicate how seriously they regard the personal statements made by Paul (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) as well as those from the 1 Cor 15:3–7 creedal tradition. But it is also clear that they respect other New Testament testimony as well. Consider that both Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar hold that we do indeed have eyewitness testimony from at least Paul regarding his claimed resurrection appearance of Jesus.39 The disagreement here is not whether Paul presented eyewitness testimony, but rather pertains to exactly what Paul saw. Critical scholars regularly repeat that Paul’s reports are the only eyewitness comments.40 Yet, Ehrman attests that what Paul learned from Peter, James, and John was pretty clear: “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”41 In defense of Ehrman, this is not the same as eyewitness testimony from the other three apostles, but it is still reliably thought to be in that vicinity or that their word at least seemed to be reliable. For the Jesus Seminar, Paul’s experience is rated as “virtually certain” while the experiences of Peter as well as Mary Magdalene are still considered to be “probably reliable.”42 This means that other testimonies besides Paul’s and this specific creed are especially valuable.

Further, while Ehrman also states that the Gospel authors are not eyewitnesses,43 and that they are often unreliable,44 they can still provide a good amount of trustworthy data about Jesus.45 So what do we learn about the resurrection appearances from the Gospel texts? Ehrman states firmly that in addition to the female testimony to the empty tomb, “we can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples” declared that Jesus “soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.”46

So the bottom line from Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar alone is that we only have eyewitness testimony in Paul, and decently close to eyewitness or at least reliable material in Galatians 1–2 from what Paul heard from Peter, James, and John’s testimonies (Ehrman), while the experiences of Peter and Mary Magdalene are considered to be “probably reliable” (Jesus Seminar), with Ehrman ascertaining that the Gospels can show us that at least some of the other disciples thought the risen Jesus had appeared to them after he died. The idea here is that even though they personally do not accept the resurrection appearances, both Ehrman and presumably the vast majority of the Jesus Seminar members consider there to be strong enough testimony not only from Paul and in the creedal tradition but also from the Gospel data if we dig it out carefully.

Since atheist scholars like Ehrman and Martin, plus the very skeptical members of the Jesus Seminar, grant the data that they do, it should not be a surprise that many less doubtful researchers have also argued that the basic series of events outlined above, along with others like them in the New Testament, are likewise reliable. Actually, this general scenario may now be the consensus position among critical scholars.

For an example, New Testament scholar James Ware begins an essay with this pronouncement, “There is almost universal scholarly consensus that 1 Cor 15.3–5 contains a carefully preserved tradition pre-dating Paul’s apostolic activity and received by him within two to five years of the founding events.”47 Further, after examining different angles of the entire issue and asking, “From whom did Paul receive traditions?” Bauckham refers to the “consensus” view regarding 1 Cor 15:3 originating in Jerusalem and specifically being obtained from the apostles there. Then Bauckham repeats that Paul, “asserts the unanimity between himself and the other apostles on the key matters that he just rehearsed” in 1 Cor 15:11, declaring, “This unanimity existed because he had received the tradition in question from the Jerusalem apostles.”48

Bauckham later answers the specific question he raised above, asserting that “the Gospels have eyewitness sources.”49 Further, in 1 Cor 15:3–8, “the list of the resurrection appearances has clearly been formulated to summarize the witness of the eyewitnesses.” Then again, “there can be no doubt that in his own recital of a kerygmatic summary in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances, including the most prominent in the Jerusalem church” such as Peter, James, and the three groups listed there. “Paul thus takes for granted the continuing accessibility and role of the eyewitnesses.”50

So, should the actual creedal tradition that Paul received in 1 Cor 15:3–7 be considered as apostolic and eyewitness in nature? Or as we have expressed once again at the very minimum, do the component parts within the creed—the death, burial, resurrection, and postresurrection appearances of Christ to both individuals and groups—agree with apostolic, eyewitness reports (see Acts 1:22)? As utilized here, “apostolic” refers to the chief learners who specifically followed and studied under Jesus’s authority and to whom Jesus primarily passed his authority. These persons then assumed the major role behind this tradition and either directly formulated, testified to, or affirmed the truth and accuracy of the material being discussed. Others with recognized subordinate roles may have been appointed or allowed to act semi-authoritatively by the apostles on their behalf, but only with the original apostolic consent.51 Of course, anyone could preach, teach, repeat, or otherwise pass on any of the creeds or other material, but not with this same apostolic authority.

There are actually at least seven indications that this prominent creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7 (or at least the truth of its contents even if not the creed itself),52 along with Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem in Galatians 1–2 plus a couple of other subjects mentioned here, indicate together that all of this material is both very early and is most likely apostolic in nature. In other words, the argument here is that there are many indications from various angles that the early gospel message was itself either apostolic and/or sufficiently close to the apostolic testimony to be accurate and authoritative. In short, we are discussing the homologia itself, the most central, agreed upon essence of the earliest church message. As Neufeld and others have noted, this message chiefly concerns the earliest Christology, revolving around the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.53 These considerations restate or rearrange items that have already been discussed in this chapter in detail, hence these reflections are more succinct.

First, the search for apostolic roots for this early message of Jesus’s death and resurrection begins with the apostle Paul himself, who is almost unanimously taken by critical scholars to be the strongest and best New Testament source. As an apostle and the eyewitness who in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8 recorded his experience that he identified as an appearance of the risen Jesus, he holds a unique position in these and other discussions. N. T. Wright among other scholars has noted that the Greek term used in 9:1 (heoraka) is the “normal word for ordinary sight. It does not imply that this was a subjective ‘vision’ or a private revelation.”54 Additional reasons behind this largely unanimous verdict have been discussed already.

Earlier it was mentioned that after discussing Jesus’s death, atheist scholar Michael Martin expresses the popular sentiment among skeptics when he proclaimed that Paul’s was the only contemporary eyewitness testimony to a postresurrection appearance of Jesus.55 Influential Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover likewise agrees that Paul’s account is the best starting point since “Paul’s testimony is the earliest and the most historically reliable evidence about the resurrection of Jesus that we have.”56 Elsewhere, Hoover attests that the text in 1 Cor 15:3–5 goes “back to the time of Paul’s conversion . . . about three years after Jesus’ crucifixion, and perhaps even earlier.”57 To repeat, the Jesus Seminar as a whole acknowledges the facticity of Jesus’s execution and death, coloring Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:8 that Christ appeared to him as “red,” their highest rating of historical reliability.58

Similar sorts of comments from influential scholars could be multiplied. Dunn remarks that “with the appearance to Paul we have the closest thing to a firsthand personal testimony to a resurrection appearance.”59 Moreover, “the personal testimony of Paul is crucial” not only because it “attests the tradition already established” before his conversion, but it also provides “the crucial identifying marks of a ‘resurrection appearance’—a seeing of Jesus and a commissioning by Jesus.”60 John Meier adds that “Paul gives us a first-hand account” from someone “who claimed to have received an appearance from the risen Jesus and to have been commissioned by him to be an apostle.”61

Second, in 1 Cor 15:3–7 Paul states that he had received and passed on (parelabon and paredōka) very early material from another source. It has been both shown and remarked earlier that virtually all scholars, no matter how critical, hold that this creedal message predates the book of 1 Corinthians and is usually always dated to AD 30–35. More material will be introduced elsewhere in this volume and in the remainder of this study as well.

Third, at every step the creedal tradition that Paul received and then passed on to the Corinthians was chiefly connected with apostolic roots, such as containing a listing of the apostles (as well as non-apostles) to whom Jesus appeared. The appearances directly to the individual apostles included Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, as well as to the groups of the twelve disciples and to “all the apostles.” Lastly, Paul adds himself in 15:8. Paul then confirms that the other apostles were all teaching this same message of Jesus Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances that he was (1 Cor 15:11). An additional indication of this apostolic confirmation is Paul’s use of the personal plural pronouns in 15:11–19 in reference to this same apostolic preaching, witnessing, and teaching. The apostles spoke with a single voice on this central subject (“as of first importance” in 15:3), affirming that these witnesses had seen the risen Jesus. Paul maintains that whether someone questioned him or any of the other apostles, they would hear the same gospel message.

The crucial bottom line on this traditional text is that if Paul is correct regarding the substance of his comment here (and he is very rarely doubted or second-guessed by scholars), then we have more than a rather amorphous belief in the early church that some early witnesses thought they saw Jesus. Rather, we know both that the statement itself was reported by the writer whom critical scholars think was un-questionably the most reliable New Testament author and who also spent significant face-to-face time discussing the gospel message with the most influential members of the other apostolic eyewitnesses, who said they saw the risen Jesus on several occasions. So Paul heard and obtained these testimonial reports from the actual wellspring of these original comments, passing on to others, as he states, the firsthand data that he received. This line of communication seems quite tight!

Fourth, Paul explains in Galatians 1 that a mere three years after his conversion, he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. The relevant Greek term historēsai in Gal 1:18 (along with historeō, from histōr) addresses Paul’s method of inquiry or investigation when he met the apostles Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, approximately five to six years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Earlier in this chapter, the likely meanings of these terms were discussed in detail. The upshot is that in an epistle where almost the entire theme concerns the gospel, it would be simply amazing if the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus did not come up in the discussions between Paul, Peter, and James. As C. H Dodd famously retorts, “We may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”62

We noted that Ware asserts that there is “almost universal scholarly consensus” that the gospel data in this creed predates Paul’s conversion.63 The report probably came from the Jerusalem apostles, notably Peter and James, during Paul’s fifteen-day stay. In fact, Ehrman notes that Jerusalem “is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions.”64 Further, “virtually all scholars of the New Testament” realize that these “stories of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection preceded Paul.”65 Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed also agree that Jerusalem is the most likely choice for the location where Paul received this tradition.66 Allison contributes here thoughtfully in keeping with the comments immediately above: “Indeed, given the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection for Paul’s self-understanding and theology, it is implausible that it never occurred to him, when spending two weeks with Peter (Gal. 1:18), to ask anything about the latter’s experiences.”67 This point follows not because scholars say so, but because the preceding data such as that mentioned here make it likely.

Fifth, in Galatians 2 Paul explains that fourteen years later he returned to Jerusalem to identify the gospel message that he had been teaching and preaching to make sure that he and the other apostles were all on the same page regarding the gospel message (Gal 2:2).68 Besides Paul (and Barnabas), the “pillars” who were present included Peter and James once again, plus the apostle John (2:9a),69 who were the four most influential authorities in the early church. The verdict was that “those leaders contributed [or added] nothing to me” (2:6b). While Paul is the one doing the writing here, this is the flip side of the previous point. The chief apostles in Jerusalem approved the gospel message as taught by Paul and Barnabas, just as Paul had asserted that the other apostles were teaching the same message as he was regarding the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:11). Critical scholars acknowledge rather freely the agreement here between these four leaders on the essentials of the gospel message.70

Sixth, the substance behind this sixth reason receives more attention in the next two chapters. Namely in passing, many (perhaps even a majority of) critical scholars are convinced that at least some of the sermon summaries in the book of Acts, along with a few other considerations, such as the Semitisms that are found in this book, are both very early and may carry the possible marks of early tradition and perhaps apostolicity.71 If that is the case, besides the Semitisms, the specific references there to the sermon summaries that specify the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ (such as the contexts in Acts 2–5, 10, 13, and perhaps 17) could be pointers to additional apostolic kerygma in the sense of presenting material that Dodd argues from the comparative language is very close to the Jerusalem apostolic and Pauline kerygma.72

Seventh, sometimes it seems as if researchers envisage that affixing individual creeds to specific, knowable dates and places is the crux of this issue. Granted, such results would be very helpful and this does seem to be the case with 1 Cor 15:3–7, but the argument does not turn on precisely this outcome. Rather, it must be remembered that the crucial bottom line is that even if certain creedal traditions are not precisely datable to their particulars, this is not the major goal of the research. As Neufeld asserted above, the basic underlying content of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection appearances was still taught by the apostles from a very early date precisely after the crucifixion and was known as such before Paul’s conversion and certainly immediately after Paul’s abrupt change. This is noted multiple times and stated repeatedly and very clearly by Ehrman.73 Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann adds a solid consideration here: “Because of the extraordinary nature of each of these events we may reckon that the appearances of Jesus were talked about immediately after they happened.”74

So ultimately, the crucial factor here concerns the content of the early apostolic gospel message of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection rather than the exact creedal form in which it was passed down. To be sure, knowing the approximate data regarding the creedal traditions would make these conclusions all the stronger. But it is indeed significant that this teaching emerged so close after the crucifixion itself and that this is so well established by the data. That is why the early date of this message, present as it was from the very beginning, is only rarely challenged seriously as even Ehrman, Lüdemann, and Allison attest clearly. This consideration is an apt reminder to refocus on the center of the overall message rather than its form.

These seven considerations among others, especially taken together, are powerful indications that the earliest reports of seeing the risen Jesus originated either directly or indirectly from the eyewitness disciples.75 Many critical scholars often imply or grant that this is virtually a given in recent thought.76 But a fair amount of balking and issuing of caveats also frequently takes place from those who may prefer these data not to follow so firmly, as will be addressed below.

Other Indications That the Apostolic Witnesses Taught the Resurrection Message

Across the breadth of critical scholarship, it is fair to say that during the Third Quest for the historical Jesus the overall conviction regarding the authority, earliness, and force of the resurrection information is probably stronger than it has ever been among those in the critical community. Almost nothing from the life of Jesus and its aftermath is more firmly established today than the reality of the disciples’ post-crucifixion experiences, whatever their nature, ranking right up with Jesus’s primary preaching of the kingdom of God and his crucifixion as the best secured events.77

As noted, even a number of atheists, agnostics, skeptics and otherwise non-Christian New Testament scholars in the last few decades freely concede these grounds.78 For example, Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide argues from eight lines of linguistic data that the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7 “may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.”79 In fact, though he is not a Christian, Lapide concludes that the resurrection was a historical event.80 New Testament scholar Howard Clark Kee surprisingly considers that Paul’s eyewitness testimony to his own resurrection experience along with some of Paul’s handing down of traditional material “can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.”81

Like Lapide, Bauckham states, “There can be no doubt that in his own recital of a kerygmatic summary in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances, including the most prominent in the Jerusalem church: Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, and James the brother of Jesus.” In the same context Bauckham remarked, “the witness of the eyewitnesses . . . corresponds in more detail to . . . the kerygmatic summaries in the speeches of Acts.” In all of this, “Paul thus takes for granted the continuing accessibility and role of the eyewitnesses.”82

In his well-researched and carefully reasoned volume Jesus Remembered, Dunn reinforces throughout the crucial import of eyewitness testimony, including hearing, checking, remembering, and relaying themes and messages as they are ascertained and retold. Dunn thinks that these criteria were at work such as with those who heard Jesus teach firsthand, where in spite of variations, “it is clearly the same story which is being retold.” The result is that “developments in the Jesus tradition were consistent with the earliest traditions of the remembered Jesus.”83 Dunn continues, “Nor should we forget the continuing role of eyewitness tradents, of those recognized from the first as apostles or otherwise authoritative hearers of the Jesus tradition.”84 Other examples occurred when Paul investigated the nature of the gospel theme with Peter and James in Jerusalem shortly after his conversion (see discussion above of the Greek terms historēsai, historeō, and histōr), or fourteen years later when Paul returned to Jerusalem and the apostle John was also present as well as at other times.85

Thus, for years now, many remarks have been made by critical scholars across the theological spectrum from non-Christian and Christian researchers alike, recognizing and indicating with little reservation that eyewitnesses and other strong observers passed on information from listening to Jesus, his apostles, or other authoritative persons. The information was derived from many sources, such as the Gospels, Paul’s Letters, the Acts sermon summaries, and even noncanonical sources. Are there further conclusions that also may be drawn from this material?

From the highly valuable pre-Pauline creedal report in 1 Cor 15:3–7 and from other passages elsewhere, additional indications also point strongly to eyewitnesses standing behind the earliest reports of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Most crucially in this regard is that three groups were mentioned in this early confessional list: “the twelve,”86 the 500 “brothers,”87 and another group referred to as “all the apostles”88 (15:5, 6, 7). The reference to the 500 could well have been to the men (adelphois) alone who were in attendance, making this a much larger group overall. No doubt, public reports concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus would quite likely have drawn crowds whenever that was a possibility, especially given Jesus’s reputation.

Perhaps rather surprisingly, beyond some of those researchers just mentioned above, even most skeptical scholars have acknowledged the multiple attestation of sources regarding several of the accounts where the witnesses are recorded as having seen the risen Jesus together. Thus it is recognized that the group appearances are multiply attested, which is highly significant in evidential terms. For some examples, the Jesus Seminar lists two independent sources for the appearance to the two individuals walking with Jesus on the way to Emmaus.89 Crossan lists four in-dependent texts that support at least one appearance to the group of Jesus’s eleven disciples (though the sources he mentions usually count as five texts),90 while the Jesus Seminar likewise lists four independent (but with slightly different) texts in favor of this group appearance to the eleven disciples.91

The supported appearances to individuals come chiefly from multiple in-dependent sources. Paul usually receives the bulk of the attention in the skeptical literature, as already noted above, since he is uniformly thought to be the strongest and best witness to a resurrection appearance of Jesus.92 Two sources for the resurrection appearance to Paul are mentioned regularly, twice by Paul himself (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) along with the three Acts accounts (9:3–19; 22:1–16; 26:9–18). Crossan and Marcus Borg spend a fair amount of time on the appearance to Paul,93 with Crossan emphasizing particularly the more physical aspects pertaining to bodily resurrection when treating the nature of Paul’s claims.94 The Jesus Seminar also lists these two sources for Paul’s appearance.95

Appearance data for other individuals besides Paul are also firm. For persons who are backed by more than one source each, the Jesus Seminar members list three independent sources that attest to a resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene.96 Crossan lists five independent texts for the appearance to Peter (though the count here also seems to be a little irregular).97 Crossan additionally lists three independent sources for the appearance to James.98

As already mentioned above while still fitting this present context as well, the Jesus Seminar colors the appearance to Paul as red (denoting a definition of “virtually certain”) and the appearance to Peter as pink, since it was derived from Paul citing the report instead of coming directly from Peter himself. But the pink designation still indicates that the Jesus Seminar considers the appearance to Peter to be “probably reliable.”99

The Seminar concluded that Mary Magdalene was also the recipient of an appearance, though without indicating whether this event should be colored red or pink. According to the reasoning given for Peter’s appearance being marked pink, the appearance to Mary should presumably also be colored the same way, since the testimony is derived from others rather than from Mary herself.100

When counting the strongest and best of these references, these scholarly comments and conclusions unquestionably indicate some strong data in favor of a number of Jesus’s appearances to his followers, especially when coming from the skeptical scholars like those that we have cited here. Lists of multiple independent sources,101 especially when witnessing group appearances of Jesus, are highly impressive as a whole, particularly when it is often heard in the media and even occasionally from scholars that there are no such testimonies for these group occasions.

Non-scholars frequently assert that the New Testament is a totally prejudiced book of propaganda that cannot be used in its own defense because of its being written by Christian authors. It is definitely true that critical scholars such as the members of the Jesus Seminar are very skeptical, more so than the majority of their scholarly colleagues today (as occasional negative comments have indicated).102 Yet, these members usually possess well-attested credentials. Indeed, the members of the Seminar have rejected approximately 84 percent of the Gospel events as being unhistorical (with only some 16 percent being designated as either red or pink in color) and rejected 82 percent of Jesus’s Gospel sayings as being inauthentic. These smaller percentages indicate that the Seminar views only a minority of Gospel occurrences and statements as somewhere between “virtually certain” (red) and “probably reliable” (pink).103

Yet, even the Jesus Seminar, with its exceptionally small positive percentages that designate the accurate Gospel events and words of Jesus, still recognizes and allows what we have termed the minimal facts. Events such as Jesus’s crucifixion and the other reports such as those just listed above are among the few that were marked either red or pink. This is remarkable in light of the preliminary statements by the Seminar members that nothing actually happened to Jesus after his death. Of course, these resulting conclusions do not mean that these scholars affirm Jesus’s resurrection, at least not as a group.104

The consensus critical view at present, then, is that Paul most likely obtained the very early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 (or at the very least the foundational data that are reported at the very heart of this creed) from those who had been apostles and eyewitnesses before him, namely Peter and James (Gal 1:18–20). This first visit to Jerusalem occurred about AD 35–36.

Then Paul (along with Barnabas and Titus) returned to Jerusalem just fourteen years later to discuss the nature of the gospel message with the same two apostles, Peter and James, and the apostle John was additionally present at that time (Gal 2:1–10). Paul stated that his purpose was to place before the other apostles the gospel message that he had been preaching during the intervening years (Gal 2:2). The other leaders (“pillars” as Paul calls them in 2:9) added nothing to his message. The second trip resulted in the other leaders’ agreement on the substance of Paul’s gospel message (Gal 2:6b, 2:9; cf. 1 Cor 15:11).105 This subsequent meeting was still quite early and would have predated the recent dates on the writing of the earliest New Testament Epistles.106

A couple of Ehrman’s comments cited earlier bear repeating briefly, especially when being lined up together. Though an atheist New Testament specialist, Ehrman concludes that one of the two key pieces of historical data about Jesus comes from learning what the apostle Paul knew and gathered in his interviews with other apostolic leaders. Ehrman thinks that critical scholars can get at least a sense of the original eyewitness apostolic testimony behind the early information that Paul received when he interviewed the two apostles Peter (“Jesus’s closest disciple”) and Jesus’s brother James in Jerusalem during his fifteen-day visit no more than “just a few years after his conversion.” Ehrman responds amazingly that “these are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus,” then adds immediately, “I wish I knew them.” It would be quite difficult to think that there would be very many New Testament scholars who would not agree absolutely with Ehrman’s sentiment! Then just shortly afterward, Ehrman asks if we could get closer than this to an eyewitness report?107 So while Ehrman does not think that the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses,108 he does make occasional comments about getting close to eyewitness testimony, especially here pertaining to Gal 2:1–10.109

This is highly significant because, along with the other conceded data, it essentially acknowledges many of the background items in a case for the resurrection of Jesus, even if the event is denied. This will be argued later.

Sometimes scholars make comments regarding the New Testament testimony being contradictory or generally unreliable.110 In fact, without much question, probably no single complaint has more commonly been aimed at the New Testament texts over more than 200 years, ever since the birth of English deism followed by Schleiermacher and German liberalism. But no matter the extent to which these complaints may or may not apply to the resurrection passages, they fail to invalidate the minimal facts approach to the data. As long as these particular, minimal number of events are known to be historical, and they are enough to establish the case, then the result in these particulars can be known.

In other words, the verdict regarding the relevant events may be established by what is known, not by what is unknown or otherwise problematic. If significant contradictory information opposed the minimal historical items in crucial aspects, then they would hardly be accepted by virtually all researchers. Yet, these events are acknowledged as historical precisely because of the literally dozens of pointers to the truth.111

Actually, critical scholars realize these principles well, hence affirming what we have termed the six minimal facts in spite of whatever irregularities are thought to exist in the Gospel texts. Regarding these data, for instance, Ehrman (1) clearly affirms the crucifixion of Jesus, on which he is very strong.112 (2) He also agrees that the disciples certainly had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus, which he calls “a matter of public record . . . it is a historical fact.”113 (3) Ehrman also thinks that the public proclamation of Jesus’s appearances began very, very early—no more than one to two years after his death.114 (4) Further, Ehrman also agrees that the lives of Jesus’s disciples were completely transformed by their belief that they had actually seen the risen Jesus alive again.115 Lastly, Ehrman clearly thinks that both (5) Paul and (6) James also had experiences that they similarly believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.116 So it is clear that Ehrman agrees with the historicity of these minimal historical facts, as do the majority of scholars. Again, Ehrman definitely denies Jesus’s resurrection along with his appearances afterward, but we will return to this matter latter in this study. For now, helping to ground the minimal facts method is alone sufficient.

Some nonspecialists nonetheless often think that contradictions and the like, if they occur in the New Testament texts, would invalidate the resurrection message. Many of these folks may think that Jesus never lived in history, but they do not speak for the specialists such as those listed throughout this chapter and elsewhere. However, whatever one might make of the presence of such issues in the Gospel texts, scholars rarely make moves of this nature. As in other areas of life such as crimes and court cases, or with almost any multiple human descriptions of the same event, it is quite regular to find even a plethora of differences in the testimonies. But that by no means renders one or more of the accounts incapable of getting correct the most crucial core elements.

Sometimes we will never know the way certain particular aspects in a story transpired, but at the same time the most important elements may be determined clearly, so it is obvious that the particular events occurred. For instance, not knowing whether there were one or two angels at the tomb as per the Gospels (or even more!) bothers very few critical scholars, as the vast majority have no trouble affirming that Jesus was buried in a tomb.

Clearly, from perusing Ehrman’s writings such as his responses above, he does not consider textual differences by themselves to exert this kind of influence on reports. In fact, in one of the passages where Ehrman makes some really decent comments while describing various aspects of the early resurrection belief, he does so precisely after mentioning that the Gospel resurrection accounts “differ in detail on almost every level. . . . They in fact differ at almost every point. . . . Sometimes the differences seem nearly impossible to reconcile.” But then he moves forward without missing a beat and reconstructs much of the accepted major data surrounding the disciples’ resurrection beliefs or teachings.117

According to the views of Paul and other New Testament writers, the factual side of the gospel message, including the testimonies regarding his postresurrection appearances, certainly included the teaching that Jesus was the Son of God and Lord, that he died, and that he was resurrected. This content is confirmed in many very early and major passages that we have discussed elsewhere in this study and will continue to address, particularly from the early creedal traditions such as Rom 1:3–4; 4:24–25; 10:9–13; and 1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–8; along with the Acts sermon summaries like 2:22–24, 32–36; 10:39–41; and 13:29–31. Lives were committed to Jesus and his message in light of these beliefs and the resulting salvation came by the grace of God through faith (Acts 13:38–39; Eph 2:8–10; Titus 3:5).

Paul and the “twelve” apostles agreed on at least these essentials of this gospel message (1 Cor 15:11; Gal 2:1–10). Again, Paul’s most important contribution to the early church, besides providing his own testimony, may have been to interview and discuss the Gospel essentials with these other three apostles to ascertain and pass on their eyewitness agreement with this central message.

Thus, the Christian message goes beyond possessing a factual creed alone and holding to it in a cerebral manner. Christianity also involves a radical commitment to a total life commitment in light of who Jesus was and what he proclaimed, as extrapolated often throughout the New Testament writings. This also will be addressed further in this study, but for now it must be noted that beyond the facts alone, there is an equally crucial sense of being sold out to Jesus Christ, of the repeated call to take up our crosses and follow Jesus through our present lives and on into eternity.118

The New Testament Criteria

The preceding material regarding the exceptionally early creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries, plus Paul’s personal eyewitness testimony,119 yield a potent foundation. But especially when combined with the information that Paul received from interviewing the other eyewitnesses primarily during his two early visits to Jerusalem, this all combines to yield an exceptionally powerful case for the experiences that the apostles concluded were appearances of the risen Jesus. Impressively however, these aspects are far from all the data supporting the disciples’ experiences.

Another battery of largely different material is drawn from the historical criteria that have long been applied to a greater or lesser degree in the study of history. In recent years these principles have been criticized from various quarters, as was discussed in the initial chapters of this study on historiography, so that material will not be reviewed here. However, most of these criteria, particularly a few of the major instances, are still employed in recent studies of the historical Jesus.

These pointers to historicity quite regularly support the central notion in the New Testament that, after Jesus Christ died from the rigors of crucifixion, his disciples had experiences that they unquestionably thought were resurrection appearances. One of the strongest evidential indicators from among the New Testament criteria and utilized widely is the principle of multiple attestation of independent sources, chiefly drawn from the Gospels.

While Mark’s Gospel does not include any narratives of Jesus’s appearances, Mark plainly predicts these events (Mark 8:31; 9:31b–32; 10:33–34; and especially 14:28) without a hint of any doubts about them. This would scarcely have been done if Mark did not endorse these events. Further, the bare fact of the resurrection was proclaimed by the angel in the tomb in Mark 16:7a, with an appearance of the already-raised Jesus predicted for Galilee. Some scholars think there is a foreshadowing of another appearance of Jesus to Peter in Mark 16:7a as well. Something must follow here for sure: writing some forty years after the events in question, Mark would hardly be both predicting and proclaiming events that he knew had never transpired, especially when that would thereby prove that Jesus was a false prophet! As critical scholar John Knox proclaimed years ago regarding Mark predicting Jesus’s resurrection appearances in Galilee, “There can be no doubt whatever that Mark knew (and knew his readers knew) that this promise had been fulfilled.”120

The late and longer ending of Mark (what some prefer to call “pseudo-Mark”)121 records three or possibly four appearances of the risen Jesus (16:12–20). The first appearance is to Mary Magdalene alone, another sighting is to the two disciples walking on the road to Emmaus, and at least one other appearance is to the disciples as a group. Depending on whether or not the ascension is counted, an additional visit could be indicated from this passage.

Examples of such testimony on behalf of these experiences would include Matthew’s M source, which records a group appearance to the women (Matt 28:9–10) and another to the eleven disciples on a Galilean mountainside (28:16–20), apparently following Mark’s prediction of this event. The L source narratives from Luke (such as Luke 24:13–53) contain reports of at least two group appearances to the two travelers on the way to Emmaus plus the group of disciples in Jerusalem, and the ascension along with one creedal report (24:34). Continuing the Lukan tradition, Acts 1:1–11 mentions frequent meetings with the risen Jesus over forty days, concluding with the ascension. John’s Gospel records four appearances: one to Mary Magdalene alone, two others to groups of the disciples with and without Thomas (20:14–29), and then to the seven disciples while they were fishing in Galilee (21:1–23).

Additional canonical texts that mention and affirm Jesus’s resurrection include Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation, while several short epistles do not mention the event directly. Yet, in each of these cases as well, there are still indications that the author was well aware of Jesus’s resurrection, exaltation, and current life in heaven.122

Perhaps even a majority of researchers would mention Josephus as at least (probably) recording the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s appearances to his disciples in Ant. 18.3.3. After commenting positively on a redacted version of the main paragraph regarding Jesus, James H. Charlesworth concludes with a strong recommendation: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus,” thereby providing “corroboration of the Gospel account.”123

The earliest authors, known as the “apostolic fathers,” include numerous comments from just the first decade after the date of the traditional close of the New Testament canon, including many references to Jesus’s resurrection. These epistles include texts such as Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians written around AD 95, known as 1 Clement (see 24–26, 42). Ignatius’s epistles, written about AD 107, mention the resurrection frequently (To the Ephesians 20; To the Magnesians 11; To the Trallians 9; To the Romans 6; To the Philadelphians Introduction, 8–9; To the Smyrnaeans 1–3, 6–7, 12). Interestingly, in To the Smyrnaeans 3, Ignatius quotes from the passage in Luke 24:36–43 where Jesus offers his body to be touched by the disciples. Whereas it may be assumed in Luke that the apostles reached out and touched Jesus after his offer to do so, Ignatius states that that is precisely what happened.124 Polycarp, writing about AD 110, also mentions Jesus’s resurrection appearances (To the Philippians 1–2, 12).125

The Didache (also known as the Teaching of the Apostles), is often dated about AD 100.126 Though it does not discuss Jesus’s resurrection appearances, certain comments imply that the resurrection was well-known (10, 16). Although there is much debate on the date, many scholars date the Gospel of Peter from the late first century into the early to mid-second century. This writing depicts a wounded though giant Jesus exiting the burial tomb supported by two giant angels while the Roman soldiers and the Jewish elders are watching (38–42).127

A few other helpful sources may also be added here. The Gospel of the Hebrews is usually dated in the first half of the second century and briefly narrates an appearance of the risen Jesus to his brother James as they share a meal together (7).128 While the Gospel of Thomas is dated quite widely, with most scholars usually dating it to the first half of the second century, some think portions of it may go back to the first century.129 This writing is a sayings document only and therefore does not narrate any resurrection appearances of Jesus. Yet, it opens in the first line by identifying these teachings as “the secret sayings of the living Jesus” (Introduction; cf. also sayings 40, 52, 59, 111; cf. Rev 1:17–18). Many scholars hold that this reference to the living Jesus most likely refers to Jesus being alive after having been raised from the dead.130 Other sayings in the Gospel of Thomas state or imply Jesus’s death (12, 55, 65), and one implies Jesus’s postmortem exaltation (66).131 Those scholars who accept the Q sayings document behind the Gospels also note comments that assume Jesus’s death (27; possibly 16). As James M. Robinson states, “Of course the Q people knew of Jesus’s death.”132

Multiple attestation has undeniably yielded an exceptionally impressive list of independent sources referencing Jesus’s resurrection and appearances as well as various applications of this message, each from a writing that dates (or could possibly date) within 100 years of Jesus’s crucifixion. Almost two dozen independent sources definitely or potentially record the disciples’ belief that they had experienced a resurrection appearance. A few more independent texts may likewise imply the disciples’ belief, and if these are included we arrive at a total of almost twenty-four separate sources, all composed within a comparatively short period of time after Jesus’s death, given the strictures and practices of ancient historiography.133

Taken as a whole, this collection of sources is a strong argument favoring the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Probably the strongest sources that favor the disciples thinking that they had seen the risen Jesus are Paul’s eyewitness testimony in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, the early creeds and Acts sermon summaries, plus the multiple attestation provided by the Gospel sources just mentioned. These are weighty witnesses. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but the attestation in favor of Jesus’s initial group appearance to the apostles has the strongest overall corroboration.

Other New Testament criteria also yield additional considerations in favor of the disciples’ experiences. Another indicator that also supports these occurrences is the presence of multiple literary forms that mention these occurrences. In this case, the idea is that, somewhat like the multiple sources, the different oral and literary genres from which the New Testament authors gathered their material as they wrote their Gospels or Epistles likewise indicate independence of another sort. Divergent reports of various types are often thought to indicate data from differing locations and informational groups, thereby specifying a wider variety of evidence types. For examples, New Testament scholars consider the following kinds of forms to be distinct: miracle genre (the closest category to the resurrection itself, as in John 20:30–31), usually very brief creedal or didactic statements like those listed above, full-blown resurrection narratives (such as those found only in Matthew, Luke, John, pseudo-Mark, and to a more limited extent in some of the Acts sermons), as well as apocalyptic venues.134

The criterion of embarrassment is another principle that figures heavily in the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s arrest, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. The chief idea here is that Christian authors would have probably eschewed the inclusion of especially pejorative reports pertaining to Jesus and other early church heroes. Therefore, if negative admissions are still included in the accounts anyway, then these reports require important reasons that override these concerns, such as favoring truth telling as the main motive over any potential humiliation. As a significant side benefit, this process further indicates the historicity of the Gospel accounts in question.135

Before the examples of embarrassing accounts pertaining specifically to our topic of Jesus’s appearances, earlier cases involving Jesus apparently occurred on more than one occasion. In the garden, Jesus prays to avoid his ensuing death, though he does request that his Father’s will be done (Mark 14:33–36; Matt 26:37–39; Luke 22:42). Jesus was possibly sweating drops of blood (Luke 22:43), even though that is normally an indication of a high level of anxiety.136 Also, Jesus questions why God has forsaken him (Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46). That Jesus should die by crucifixion in the first place was an extreme embarrassment in itself (Deut 22:23), not to mention the proclamation of a crucified Messiah doubling that image, combining to make Jesus’s death perhaps the worst embarrassment (1 Cor 1:21–25).

Regarding Jesus’s followers, when he is taken prisoner in the garden, we are told that all of his disciples fled (Mark 14:50; Matt 26:56). A little later, Peter, the chief apostle, denies three times that he even knew Jesus’s identity in spite of having asserted boldly beforehand that he would go to his death for Jesus’s sake before he would desert him (Mark 14:66–72; Matt 26:69–75; Luke 22:56–62). Except for John, Jesus’s closest disciples were seemingly not present at his crucifixion, while at least some of the women were in attendance though removed a distance (Mark 15:40; Matt 27:55). Neither were the apostles present to assist the women with Jesus’s burial.

One of the best known cases of embarrassment pertains to the discovery of the empty tomb. All four Gospels record that the initial witnesses who found the empty tomb were women. To understand this situation better, the Gospel authors were located in different geographical areas around the Mediterranean area rather than all residing and writing in the same general area. So why would each of these writers report that the women were the first persons to visit Jesus’s tomb when their testimony presumably would be devalued severely? Moreover, since Luke and John both explain that some of the men also visited the empty tomb after the women did so and affirmed their accounts (Luke 24:12 [with alternate readings], 24; John 20:3–9), why didn’t they simply begin their Easter stories with the account of the men and avoid the female testimony altogether, which still would be a truthful rendition? The answer is because that is not exactly how it happened—again, the truth is the goal.

So all four Gospels, including Luke and John, began their resurrection accounts with the women because that is simply what occurred. On all these occasions, then, truth telling won out over embarrassment and convenience! As a result, a major argument for the historicity of the empty tomb emerged. Today, this is still the most frequent reason given as to why critical scholars accept the empty tomb.

But what about the specific theme of this chapter regarding the disciples’ experiences—were there any embarrassing incidents here as well? During Jesus’s ministry, his own brother James plus his other brothers had failed to believe in him, seemingly being embarrassed when Jesus came to town.137 The majority of critical scholars hold it was the appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:7) that brought about James’s faith and led to him becoming the pastor of the Jerusalem church (see Acts 15:12–19; 21:17–26, for examples).

Saul of Tarsus provides another major case of embarrassment, and perhaps even the very best example. Later renamed Paul the apostle, this brilliant man, a Pharisee and expert in the Old Testament law, had risen to the top echelons in his group (Gal 1:18). He then persecuted and imprisoned Christians, thinking that he was following the will of God in the process,138 as in the cases of Stephen (Acts 7) and others. But then he met the risen Jesus and his life turned around midstream.139 In both these cases of Paul and James, the world has never been the same.

Regarding the twelve original apostles, embarrassing circumstances also play a major role. When these men heard the women’s report that Jesus’s tomb was empty, they not only failed to believe them but they thought that their story was exaggerated at best (Luke 24:10). The long ending of pseudo-Mark reports that these disciples also disbelieved other followers who claimed to see the risen Jesus as well, and when they saw Jesus for themselves, Jesus even rebuked them for their unbelief (Mark 16:13–14). Luke adds the similar note that when Jesus appeared to the group, they doubted that their master was truly present and still continued doubting until he ate food in front of them (Luke 24:36–43). This theme of doubt is also mentioned when Jesus appears to his disciples on the mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:17). Of course, John’s Gospel relates the famous story of Thomas, who was not present in the previous group meeting and likewise required a personal appearance before he would believe. Jesus grants that request, but also admonishes Thomas that he ought to have believed the testimony of his colleagues (John 20:24–29).

It is clearly the case that embarrassing episodes plagued Jesus’s followers from his initial arrest all the way through his appearances to them. This is a ubiquitous theme the entire way, with the clearest cases arguably being the repeated failures to believe even when the risen Jesus appeared and those reports were circulating from the witnesses. These recurrent and embarrassing circumstances provide additional punch along with the other indications that argue that Jesus truly appeared again after his death.

Dissimilarity or double dissimilarity has the dubious distinction of being hailed variously as the strictest or strongest of the rules,140 as the “most useful” one,141 or even as the guideline viewed as the most problematic or controversial of the criteria.142 Basically, this test finds that if a similar deed or especially a teaching of Jesus is not strongly paralleled in either earlier Jewish teachings or later Christian proclamations, then it is more likely that the incident or saying is probably original to Jesus.

According to Käsemann, some of the events and teachings of Jesus that pass the criterion of dissimilarity are his claims to authority and even his own inspiration, his casting out of demons, and his confrontation of listeners with the message of God’s kingdom.143 A little closer to the most relevant items in this study, Ehrman adds that Jesus’s betrayal by his closest followers and the idea that the Messiah must suffer, be crucified, and die also follow from the criterion of dissimilarity.144 It should be noted that the resurrection appearances, if they occurred, might also be added to Ehrman’s list here as cases of single dissimilarity, since, along with other scholars, Ehrman does not think these were taught in the Old Testament. Further, different criteria may help establish the same data, since both of Ehrman’s examples here have already been cited above as being cases of embarrassment.

Another criterion concerns locations where the New Testament words change from Greek to Aramaic wording. This usually occurs in some quite crucial passages, as if the intent were for the Christian community to emphasize and remember Jesus’s exact words. Examples relevant to the resurrection appearances would include Jesus’s healing texts (Mark 7:34; 10:51//Matt 20:32//Luke 18:41), especially when he raises Jairus’s deceased daughter (Mark 5:41//Luke 8:54–55). It could also be added that besides the times when the actual Aramaic terms are employed, sometimes Semitic idioms are also used, indicating similar sorts of originality (as the exorcism accounts in Mark 1:24//Luke 4:33–34; 9:40). A different Aramaic case mentioned above is when Jesus asks why God abandoned him during his crucifixion (Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46), an overlap with an embarrassing passage. Graham Twelftree notes that these examples provide some of the clearest cases of getting back to the original scenarios and wording.145

Closer to our subject at hand regarding Semiticisms within the textual witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection appearances, when Mary Magdalene sees Jesus for the first time near the tomb, she addresses him with the Hebrew term for “Master” or “Teacher” (Rabbounei) in John 20:16. Further, there have been numerous discussions concerning whether the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 was based on an Aramaic original, a debate that has ended in a stalemate.146 There is probably more widespread agreement that some of the Acts sermon summaries are Greek translations of originally Aramaic sayings. C. H. Dodd notes that the sermon snippets in Acts 2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; and 5:17–40 particularly show indications of Aramaic originals. Dodd judges that Acts 10:34–53 contains the strongest evidence for an Aramaic original.147

One last potentially helpful criterion for assessing the study of the resurrection witnesses is that of enemy attestation. Very little will be added here because we will treat the Matthean report of the guards at the tomb (27:62–28:1–4, 11–15) in much detail in the chapter on Jesus’s burial below. The historicity of this story is rejected by the vast majority of recent scholars who treat this subject. Yet there may be more helpful data here than what may be thought at first glance. It must be remembered too that the placing of guards in itself is both quite a natural and even an obvious request that features nothing supernatural.148 Further, the additional, unexplained comment in Acts 6:7b may or may not be relevant to the result here. But if there is any value to Matthew’s report of the guards being placed at Jesus’s tomb, this would most likely provide some additional historical force to both the traditional burial of Jesus as well as to his appearances in explaining the reasons for these reported conversions of Jewish priests. James and Paul could also be added to this criterion due to their status as unbelievers and, in Paul’s case, being a persecutor of the church.149

This chapter was introduced by emphasizing the multiple early and eyewitness sources that attest to the original participants being absolutely assured that they had seen the risen Jesus. These sources were derived largely from the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, plus Paul’s personal eyewitness testimony. A huge boost was provided by Paul’s two early trips to Jerusalem to interview the other major eyewitnesses, namely, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and later John as well as their agreement on the nature of this information. All the apostles agreed on this centermost message (chiefly, 1 Cor 15:11; Gal 2:6, 9).

Next, the gospel criteria studied in this section provides multiple reasons that establish further some likely historical facts, plus at the same time produces even more backup for the data already evidenced. Of these criteria, multiple attestation of independent sources provides the strongest foundation, while the many key cases of embarrassment also add valuable assistance. Aramaic phrases contribute some punch in important areas too. Overall, the criteria deepen what is already known from additional angles, not to mention establish new insights and facts. When considering a first-century scenario, a stronger case could hardly even be imagined.

A Checklist of Data Favoring the Disciples’ Experiences

Literally dozens of indications, both major and minor, have been collected in this chapter in support of the notion that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, his disciples had experiences that absolutely convinced them that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, both singly as well as in groups. Every step involves the apostolic witness. To create a unified tally here, we will summarize and enumerate a list of up to three dozen total pointers on behalf of these experiences, mostly composed of independent sources, some of which are exceptionally well-attested, along with additional criteria that specify particular indications of historicity that assist in the consideration of the stronger considerations. In other words, the subsidiary supports within the larger areas below should be considered not as stand-alone reasons but as supporting material for the more crucial arguments. These major arguments are numbered separately with some containing these related subconsiderations.150

(1) As the strongest texts according to critical scholars, Paul’s eyewitness comments like 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, plus the secondary narrative accounts in Acts,151 are crucial considerations regarding Jesus’s postmortem appearances. Moreover, Paul mentions the resurrection many other times throughout his Epistles.

(2) The early creedal traditions such as 1 Cor 15:3–7, plus many others,152 predate the New Testament books in which they were included along with the slightly different early sermon summaries in Acts.153 A number of items in this group are usually dated to AD 30–40 and are among the very strongest indicators that the disciples had these experiences and communicated them to others.

(3) Beyond the chief tradition that Paul received and then passed on to the Corinthians, his extended comments afterward in this immediate context were coupled at every turn with apostolic activity and involvement, starting with the lists of those to whom Jesus appeared. Since the entire discussion revolved around the apostles and their testimony, the importance for the central proclamation of the gospel would follow.

The appearances were directly to individual apostles like Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and Paul. Sometimes the other apostles are minimized a bit, but the others were involved in the experiences as well, such as with the groups of the twelve disciples, and then to “all the apostles.” But it should not be forgotten that the best attested appearance of all was the one to the twelve disciples.154 The evidence mentioned here is a reminder that the other apostles should be counted as well. Then Paul asserts that the other apostles were all teaching this same message that he was, especially regarding Jesus Christ’s appearances (1 Cor 15:11), which is an absolutely crucial truth to be unpacked elsewhere at different points in this study.

Additional indications of apostolic participation and confirmation from start to finish are seen in Paul’s use of the personal plural pronouns in 1 Cor 15:11–19 referencing this same apostolic group. There was a single voice on this absolutely crucial topic (“as of first importance” in 15:3). For Paul, questions or challenges to him or the other apostles would be answered with the same gospel message. In short, these witnesses had seen the risen Jesus and were taking the message to others (15:11–15, 19). These intricate links from start to finish are strong considerations that favor these resurrection appearances being seen and proclaimed by the original apostolic eyewitnesses themselves.

(4) Additionally connecting Paul to the original apostolic eyewitnesses is one of the chief arguments made throughout this chapter. Namely, the consensus view of critical scholars that Paul probably received the early creedal material (or at least the factual content of this tradition) in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from the Jerusalem apostles Peter and James when he stayed with them for fifteen days (Gal 1:18–20), as Paul narrates. This meeting itself is being highlighted in this point. The term Paul chose here to explicate his inquiring and investigating was historēsai. But even if Paul did not receive the actual creed at that time, researchers seldom doubt that he at least minimally received and understood the original gospel homologia being preached by the other apostles. This visit inaugurated an eyewitness foundation probably based on the creedal information above, and at a very early date, as argued and listed above.155

(5) Paul then explains firsthand that he returned to Jerusalem fourteen years later (still early enough to most likely have preceded the first New Testament epistle)156 to discuss specifically the nature of the gospel message with the same two disciples that he probed in his earlier trip (Gal 1:18–20) in addition to the apostle John (2:1–10, especially 2:2). These were the four most influential apostles and leaders in the earliest church. It was a successful meeting, resulting in the other apostles agreeing with Paul on the subject of the gospel message that he had been preaching. The other “pillars” did not attempt to correct Paul’s message at all (2:6b). The meeting concluded with the Jerusalem disciples acknowledging Paul and Barnabas by extending “the right hand of fellowship” (2:9), indicating their brotherhood in the faith.

These two meetings in Jerusalem may have been what most persuaded Paul that he and the other apostles were on the same page in preaching and teaching the gospel message (the homologia) regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus, and that it occupied the center of their proclamation. Paul’s readers could inquire of either himself or the other pillars because they would hear the same responses (1 Cor 15:11).157 In these two rendezvous, we witness the very earliest eyewitnesses formulating the initial instantiation of the creedal traditions with which this chapter began. These two visits rank among the very top few indications that favor the actual appearances of the risen Jesus, coming as they did so early as well as from the major apostolic eyewitnesses.

(6) Another consideration that also possesses tremendous evidential value concerns the number of the appearances between Jesus and his disciples that took place in groups. In total, counting duplicates in the separate texts, up to thirteen group appearances are mentioned in the literature,158 three of these from the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 (which likely preceded Paul’s conversion). The group sightings together indicate that in a variety of events and circumstances, many people reported seeing Jesus at different times and locations.159 As cited above, even the Jesus Seminar and John Dominic Crossan cite from four to up to seven texts that report independently attested group appearances to Jesus’s disciples, plus a couple of sources for the two followers on the way to Emmaus, meaning that these group appearances are multiply attested,160 as is also the case for Jesus’s appearances to individuals.161

(7) A large category of teachings can be derived from the criteria applied to New Testament texts, beginning with a number of additional examples of multiple attestation regarding Jesus’s resurrection and the appearances themselves. Of further interest is the application of these teachings and insights in the early church based on this event, to areas such as theology, ethics, preaching, or counseling. Many of these subjects at this point overlap significantly at key junctures, but the central idea is that it is Jesus’s resurrection that provides numerous confirmatory examples that arise from the intersecting connections made with other crucial Christian truths.

What we are attempting to get at here may be close to Dale Allison’s distinction that perhaps a slightly different approach to, or version of, multiple attestation (or possibly just moving beyond it somewhat) may be termed “recurrent attestation by which I mean a theme or motif that is repeatedly attested throughout the tradition.”162 In this case, it is the “theme or motif” of repeating resurrection ideas so as to utilize them in building up other theological or practical themes as a result.

For example, (a) Paul’s authentic epistles develop these intersections from a variety of angles. These include many further, relevant comments employing Jesus’s resurrection in various circumstances. A few of these applications for Paul would include the relevance of Jesus’s resurrection to ethical purity (1 Cor 6:14), as a reason for Paul’s faith and assurance in proclaiming his message (2 Cor 4:14), in sharing Jesus’s sufferings, death, and resurrection (Phil 3:10, 11), his expectation of the believer’s ultimate resurrection (Phil 3:21), or for the believer’s hope even in the face of death (1 Thess 4:14).

Similarly in the Gospels, (b) the Q text portions of Matthew and Luke contain some relevant teachings concerning both Jesus’s miracles—including his raising the dead (Matt 11:2–11; Luke 7:18–28), noting hints of his own death (Matt 11:38; Luke 14:27)—and his prediction of his resurrection as the ultimate sign of the truth that he brought (Matt 12:38–42; Luke 11:29–32). (c) In an L passage in Luke (13:31–33), Jesus also suggests the relevance of his resurrection as the crowning portion of his ministry.

While (d) Mark does not narrate any actual appearances of Jesus, he both notes that these events were going to occur (Mark 8:31; 9:31b–32; 10:33–34; and especially 14:28) as well as reports the man or angel inside the burial tomb proclaiming that Jesus had already risen and would appear soon in Galilee (16:7). (e) The long appendix in Mark, almost certainly written by a later hand, adds narrated appearances of the resurrected Jesus (16:9, 12, 14–20).

Representative passages are found similarly in other canonical New Testament texts that also affirm the truth of Jesus’s resurrection as well as its relevance to a wide variety of truths. Some of these representative examples include (f) Ephesians (1:18–21; 2:6–7), Colossians (1:18; 3:1–4); 2 Timothy (2:8; cf. 2:11); Hebrews (13:20; cf. 12:2), 1 Peter (1:3–4; 1:21; 3:18), and Revelation (1:18; 2:8; 5:6a).

(g) At the end of the first century, Josephus probably records the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s appearances (Ant. 18.3.3). As a non-Christian, historical source, this is particu-larly noteworthy.

Three apostolic fathers from the late first century to the first decade of the second century likewise include numerous references to Jesus’s resurrection. These include (h) 1 Clem. 24–26, 42 (written about AD 95), (i) Ignatius’s epistles from about AD 107 (Eph. 20; Magn. 11; Trall. 9; Rom. 6; Phld. Introduction, 8–9; Smyrn. 1–3, 6–7, 12), including the disciples touching Jesus’s risen body (Smyrn. 3). (j) Polycarp also mentions Jesus’s resurrection appearances about AD 110 (Phil. 1–2, 12).

Though (k) the Didache, often dated about AD 100, does not discuss Jesus’s resurrection appearances, it is clear that this event was well-known (10, 16). In spite of much discussion on the date for the (l) Gospel of Peter, this early to mid-second-century document depicts rather bombastically a giant though wounded Jesus exiting the burial tomb being supported by two angels that are almost as tall, and he is viewed by a crowd of many witnesses, including the Roman soldiers and Jewish elders alike (10:1–5).

Another early source that comments on the resurrection appearances is the (m) early to mid-second-century Gospel of the Hebrews that narrates a brief appearance as the risen Jesus and his brother James share a meal together (7). (n) The Gospel of Thomas is usually dated somewhere in the first half of the second century, though some scholars think some comments actually may date to the first century. This sayings document contains no narrated resurrection appearances. Still, this book opens with the very first line identifying its teachings as “the secret sayings of the living Jesus” (Introduction; also sayings 40, 52, 59, 111), which are often taken as a reference to the words of the living Jesus fully alive after his resurrection.163 Other relevant Thomas sayings state or imply Jesus’s death (12, 55, 65) as well as his postmortem exaltation (66).164

From this list alone, then, the extended use of the criterion of multiple attestation seems to be applicable to at least twenty sources that mention Jesus’s resurrection and/or appearances, with these totals being about evenly split between canonical and noncanonical sources. This number could rise to about two dozen or so, depending on the authorship of a few more texts or if some writings are counted where these events are implied strongly.165 Of these totals, each text may be dated (or might possibly date) to within just 100 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.166

When compared alongside relevant ancient non-Christian sources, the crucifixion of Jesus and the disciples’ postmortem experiences must be considered as two of the very strongest twin historical source counts from antiquity. The strongest arguments favoring the disciples’ experiences are Paul’s own testimony, the early creeds and Acts sermon summaries, Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to discuss the gospel message with the other influential apostles, plus the multiple attestation argument immediately above.

Another criterion that supports the disciples’ experiences at least somewhat are (8) the multiple literary forms.167 Examples would include a miracles genre (like the resurrection itself), creedal or didactic statements such as 1 Cor 15:3–7, full-blown resurrection narratives as in the Gospels and Acts, as well as apocalyptic venues. The examples have all been used in previous categories, but it is the existence of the multiple forms themselves highlighted here.

(9) The criterion of embarrassment also figures more heavily in the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s arrest, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. The multiple examples include Jesus praying in Gethsemane about the prospect of avoiding his death, the possible authenticity of his sweating drops of blood possibly due to anxiety, and his questioning why God had forsaken him while he was being crucified. In fact, the crucifixion itself, especially in light of Jesus’s teachings about himself, was probably the greatest stumbling block in the early Christian proclamation of the good news of the gospel.

Further, Jesus’s brother James along with other family members had failed to believe in Jesus as well. Then all eleven of Jesus’s male apostles fled and Peter denied three times that he even knew Jesus. Only John was present at his crucifixion according to the Fourth Gospel, while none were present at Jesus’s burial, though the women were there.

Another outstanding case of embarrassment was that the initial eyewitnesses who discovered the empty tomb were the women. Yet, recording the truth was the goal of the Gospel authors, and that was simply the way the incident happened. Hence, the authors preferred to tell the story the way it occurred rather than overcome the embarrassment! For critical scholars, this is still a major argument employed indicating the historicity of the empty tomb.

That James the brother of Jesus was an unbeliever who probably did not commit himself to Jesus until witnessing a resurrection appearance is a major indicator that argues for Jesus’s appearance to him. Later, the apostle Paul met the risen Jesus and his life turned around midstream, leading to his conversion from his previous persecution of the church. We also saw that the original apostles reportedly disbelieved the women’s testimony as well as each other’s. Then when Jesus appeared, they doubted that it was Jesus on more than one occasion when he was immediately in front of them!

In each of these instances and still others, embarrassing circumstances were recorded regularly concerning Jesus and early church heroes for the sake of accurate reporting. The unexpected result strengthens the historicity of several key incidents.

(10) Dissimilarity or double dissimilarity is a criterion that is indicated when Jesus’s teachings or deeds are neither drawn from nor inspired by previous Jewish sources or ideas or from later Christian teachings. For Ehrman, both Jesus’s betrayal by his closest followers and his own view that the Messiah must suffer, be crucified, and die also follow from the criterion of dissimilarity.168

Another criterion concerns (11) the Aramaic wording located at various key places in the Gospels, often in notably important locations, such as Jesus’s healing texts, especially when he raised Jairus’s deceased daughter, or when Semitic idioms are used, as in particular exorcism accounts. Accordingly, we saw earlier that some scholars think these cases mark some of the strongest places where the original scenarios and wording probably prevailed.

In John’s treatment of Jesus’s resurrection, when Mary Magdalene saw the risen Jesus for the first time near the tomb, she responded with a Hebrew salutation, addressing Jesus as Master or Teacher (Rabbounei). It is often thought that her original term had most likely been preserved here. Another example is that the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 may have been based on an Aramaic original, but this argument more or less turned out to be a standoff. A stronger case can be made that some of the Acts sermon summaries are Greek translations of what were originally Aramaic sayings.

(12) Enemy attestation is another potentially helpful criterion pertaining to the resurrection accounts. There is somewhat better reason here than is normally thought for Matthew’s report of the guards at Jesus’s tomb, although it does not by itself thereby determine the historicity of this story. But it could help provide some additional strength for both Jesus’s traditional burial as well as for his appearances. Another potential example is provided by the “large number” of Jewish priests among those who became postresurrection believers in Jesus Christ at a very early date, though with no further elaboration (Acts 6:7b). Admittedly, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that the reason for their conversions was Jesus’s resurrection, for there is no explication of the cause. Yet, in such close proximity to the earliest church and its central resurrection preaching, this event at least may not have been very far removed from the priests coming to faith. Of course, James and Paul are relevant here too, as mentioned above.

(13) If Jesus’s burial tomb was empty, scholars agree that such an event would not have caused the disciples to have experienced the risen Jesus.169 However, evidence for a vacated sepulcher would cohere with the overall case for the appearances, adding a one-two evidential punch to the overall case.170 Likewise, Licona also lays out a careful step-by-step case, emphasizing the strength of the empty tomb evidence as well as its significant role in providing strong evidence for Jesus’s resurrection.171

According to this checklist, we have demarcated a total of thirteen major arguments that the earliest eyewitnesses were the recipients of experiences that they were utterly convinced were appearances of the risen Jesus. As per the earlier explanation, a number of additional subsidiary reflections (or subarguments) also bolster these reasons. Depending on how these further considerations are counted, these could bring the total to more than thirty total considerations for the disciples’ experiences.172 Within these figures, the overall number of sources utilized included a minimum of twenty different texts or groupings of passages, rather evenly divided between canonical and noncanonical writings.173 Each source was arguably written roughly within 100 years of Jesus’s crucifixion.174

Adjustments to the Factual Count?

This total source count could be either expanded or contracted further in a number of ways. A possibility could include either extending the range of years or data,175 or by counting differently a number of texts that were combined here. For instance, the dozens of creedal traditions in the Epistles plus the Acts sermon summaries were the major examples of this contraction, being counted just once whereas they could easily have been counted twice.176 The seven unanimously accepted epistles written by Paul are another instance that was counted as a single source, as they should be, in that they were written wholly or chiefly by just one author.177

Paul’s eyewitness testimony to an appearance of Jesus plus the Acts secondary accounts that recorded his appearance and conversion were also counted only once. Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem were of course counted as two distinctive events because they happened many years apart with different interactions in each, though some scholars think there were actually three occasions of this sort if the account in Acts 15 is separate (or else it could be another case of multiple attestation for Paul’s second visit). The agreement on central features of the gospel message between the four most influential Christian leaders in the earliest church—Peter, James the brother of Jesus, John, and Paul (plus Barnabas)—provided a powerful foundation derived from these meetings.

In this chapter some half dozen different historical criteria were combined to provide multiple reasons that establish other vital historical facts regarding the disciples as witnesses to their own experiences. Of the criteria alone, without any doubt, multiple attestation of independent sources provided the strongest criterion,178 augmented by the concept of embarrassment, which also added many additionally valuable insights on several matters. Taken as a whole, the total input from the other criteria uncovered new supporting facts and provided numerous points of emphasis, all the while deepening still other aspects.

We just mentioned immediately above an example of this convergence in Johnson’s dialogue that could serve as a strong example of doubling up where two or even more different criteria may join to strengthen the data for particular historical facts. In this case, the individual events established from the multiple texts could be reinforced further especially when these combined independent sources zero in and converge on specific aspects of these facts, like light beams from two angles illuminating a single object in the road. In this manner, several texts might point in the same direction, not just indicating what is there, but emphasizing important aspects of the object that identifies it as the object being sought.

These half dozen different criteria combine to provide numerous reasons that establish other vital historical facts regarding the disciples as witnesses to their own experiences. This was especially the case when the criteria helped to provide additional angles when accenting Paul’s conversion experience, the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, as well as Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to inquire of the other three major apostles. That the appearances occurred in groups was especially strong evidence. Taken as a whole, the aggregated total input in this lengthy list of data thereby provided numerous points of emphasis, all the while deepening still other aspects.

A comment by historian Paul Barnett has been mentioned a number of times throughout this volume because of his rather stunning comparative comment regarding the early time element alone in these arguments (to be accented in the next two chapters): “In terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.” Barnett is saying that the historical case for Jesus is the best in the ancient world when considering the combined closeness of the reports to the events, plus individual details such as teachings and events, as compared to the others.179

Conclusion

This chapter centered on probably the most crucial of the half dozen minimal facts: the disciples’ post-crucifixion experiences, both singly and in groups, which convinced them firmly that Jesus had been raised from the dead and had appeared to them. There is an amazing convergence at this point where the available data indicate very strongly and repeatedly that this conclusion was precisely true. There is even more support available here than is necessary for the task, all indicating the likelihood that these real experiences occurred. Further, these appearances steered the future path of these convinced witnesses so that they were amazingly motivated to share this good news that they had witnessed throughout the remainder of their lives, even in the face and likelihood of suffering imminent harm.

The crucial data coalesce at many key points to support the conclusion that the disciples had these original experiences and believed that they were actual appearances of the risen Jesus. From this study, thirteen major arguments plus a greater number of subsidiary facts add up to about three dozen considerations, providing the foundation for these conclusions. The strongest of these arguments were, in particular, Paul’s eyewitness conversion experience, the pre-Pauline creedal traditions, hymns, and Acts sermon summaries that probably predated his conversion, and Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to inquire of the apostles Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John (including the investigative notion of the term historēsai) on the nature of the gospel teaching to which the other eyewitnesses agreed. Plus, these experiences occurred in a number of group sightings. Along with the wide variety of multiple attestation of independent texts and a few strongly embarrassing situations, these were the major evidences.

It was also pointed out that some of this creedal material dates just slightly later than the crucifixion, beginning with the message of 1 Cor 15:3–7 as potentially the earliest and most important tradition of all—most likely originating just days or months after the cross. This provenance and time frame cement the entire message. But it is absolutely vital to recall here that nothing turns on the timing of any particular creed per se, but on the overall, even earlier content of the message—the homologia—which is the most vital element, predating even the structured creeds themselves. The historical argument here is quite tight, especially for the ancient world!

One important witness to the strength of these conclusions regarding the disciples having had these real experiences is that the available data have even convinced critical scholars to the extent that this is the scholarly consensus on the historicity of these early Christian experiences. Further, this agreement has been the case for a very long time. This is rarely contested in the academy, where this understanding has generally been held (or at least allowed) as a mainstay in research throughout the many ebbs and flows of one theological trend after another, whether leaning non-Christian, skeptical, liberal, moderate, or conservative.

This concession is such standard fare that, when introducing an overview on the minimal facts argument, Dale Allison registered a rather casual comment by asserting:

I wonder about Habermas’s emphasis on the widespread scholarly agreement that the disciples really had experiences that they construed as encounters with the risen Jesus. Christians of various stripes have always believed this, and I am under the impression that, since David Friedrich Strauss, most skeptical scholars have also had no qualms about attributing visions to the first resurrection witnesses. . . . Has there ever been a time when a significant number of critical scholars did not believe that some early Christians thought themselves to have seen the risen Jesus?180

Of course, Allison is correct in attributing this view to Strauss, who specifically concedes that the apostles themselves were “convinced that they had witnessed appearances of the risen Christ.”181 Later, Strauss adds, “The Apostles themselves had the conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus . . . the disciples were convinced of the resurrection of Jesus.”182 Before him, Strauss’s professor, the highly influential scholar F. C. Baur, held concerning Paul that “it was the most decided conviction of the Apostle, that as Jesus had appeared to the Apostles and the other believers, so at last he had visibly manifested himself to him.”183 Earlier still, the scholar often called the father of German liberalism, Friedrich Schleiermacher, was likewise convinced that early eyewitnesses such as John and Paul, in agreement, imparted their firsthand testimony regarding Jesus’s resurrection appearances to the new followers of Jesus, as well as these apostles agreeing with these views themselves.184

In spite of his own heavy skepticism, even Rudolf Bultmann asserted many decades ago, “All that historical criticism can establish is the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection.”185 Much more recently, Ehrman has noted that he would hardly oppose the notion that the disciples at least thought they had witnessed appearances of the risen Jesus, affirming this “with complete certainty” due to his view that “this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact.”186 Crossan adds concerning the disciples in the Gospels, “I am convinced as a fact that they had apparitions. How you explain that is a separate issue, but it happened; they are not making it up; it’s not hallucinations.”187

This topic and its meaning form the heart of this treatment. Some, like Allison, may possibly treat the evidence as a case of overkill on a subject that has long been conceded by critical scholars and skeptics alike, as he states above. But for now, this lengthy evidential treatment is justified based on a number of significant considerations. Some researchers actually back off crucial elements of an argument that they once conceded when pressured to recognize results that they may no longer appreciate. Further, trends often change. Hence it is wise to build up and reinforce major elements of the case even beyond what most researchers require, simply due to the sheer importance of the material. After all, pursuing the minimal facts argument is the goal of this study, and the disciples’ belief here is at the very center of that approach.

Another reflection on Allison’s comment should be mentioned too. It is indeed the case that the disciples’ beliefs that they saw the risen Jesus has long been conceded by critical scholars going back to David Strauss and even before that. Still, it is also worthwhile to mention that within the current influential tradition of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus, the disciples’ beliefs at this specific point have perhaps never been held by critical researchers more strongly or more widely during the past two centuries or more. That certainly differs as compared to other critical periods of thought.

Even further, it is also the case that a greater number of critical scholars proceed beyond the disciples’ belief here and conclude that Jesus was truly raised from the dead and actually appeared in some real sense. As noted at the outset of this chapter, imminent researcher E. P. Sanders actually ranks the actual appearances of the risen Jesus as part of the “equally secure facts” and places them among the historical data that are most widely accepted by recent scholars, thereby enjoying widespread critical attestation.188 Even Allison joins these scholars in acknowledging firmly, “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.”189 Strauss and many other critics did not confess anything like this—hence the huge difference between “then” and “now”! Such affirmations proceed beyond the normal scholarly recognition witnessed in the past, and at the most crucial junction in Christian belief as well. Not to recognize these developments is to miss a vital cog in the contemporary ethos.

Peter, James the brother of Jesus, John, and Paul were the most influential leaders in the earliest church, where they served in the capacity that we might term the guardians of the homologia or centermost message of Christianity. Together they agreed with, blessed, and spread both the factual side of the gospel message of Jesus’s deity, death, and resurrection from the dead, as well as requiring that their listeners commit and surrender their lives to Jesus in faith and trust, which completed the personal side of salvation and led to lives of following their Lord and serving others. Both aspects of the gospel preaching were held centrally, firmly, and were emphasized as such.

In sum, it must also be remembered that many other recent studies have unpacked and reaffirmed the critically accepted data on these subjects, resulting in even stronger cases.190 Since we are at the very center of the Christian church’s ancient affirmation here, this study is more than warranted precisely for reasons just like these. Later in this study we will take the next and last evidential step by considering whether we can credibly move from the disciples’ experiences to their actually having witnessed appearances of the risen Jesus.191

Notes

1 Rudolf Bultmann opens his Theology of the New Testament with these words: “The dominant concept of Jesus’ message is the Reign of God. Jesus proclaims its immediately impending irruption, now already making itself felt. . . . The coming of God’s Reign is a miraculous event, which will be brought about by God alone without the help of men” (1:4) (see chap. 4, n. 84). “But what are the signs of the time? He himself! His presence, his deeds, his message!” (1:7). To this reality Jesus called his generation to himself—it was an exhortation to a radical commitment where “he in his own person is the sign of the time” (1:9); also 1:4–13 among others.

2 Skeptical scholar James D. Tabor speaks for many when he asserts, “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead and that his temporary place of burial was discovered to be empty shortly thereafter.” Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 230; see chap. 1, n. 18.

3 As stated several times by E. P. Sanders in his volume Human Figure of Jesus, 11, 13, 278, 280 (see excursus 1, n. 63).

4 Brown, New Testament Christology, 14–15 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

5 Two of the earliest authors to employ this name for these thinkers were N. T. Wright and Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 288n1, 379, 381. Like Raymond Brown, Wright and Neill somewhat similarly noted several tendencies that often trend toward more conservative ideas across a number of recent areas of study while still containing certain more liberal trends along the way (360–403, 437–38).

6 Bultmann (as well as Karl Barth, it may be added) opposed rather strongly the mounting of historical arguments, evidential grounding, and similar approaches to buttress or provide foundations for accepting the New Testament documents or beliefs. In spite of his often-mentioned views here, it is perhaps not as well known that Bultmann on several occasions still acknowledged and listed many specific New Testament texts (though with very little elaboration) that he considered to be very early traditions or primitive sermon summaries. This can be observed again, for example, in Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:27, 45–46, 50, 80–83, 125–26, 293–96, 312. Of these examples, the early traditions listed on 27, 45–46, 80–83 refer either to Jesus’s resurrection or to his appearances, though Bultmann asserted that the more central and crucial texts here were actually legends or were formulated in Hellenistic environments (such as 45, 83, 125). In the larger context, these comments seemed to serve the purpose of lessening the impact and force of these discoveries. Yet, in keeping with his own theological propensities, Bultmann seldom provides any historical data whatsoever to support his own pronouncements concerning these passages. Perhaps surprisingly, he still tied these creedal traditions to the earliest church (50, 295, including the footnote) and often even acknowledges that these texts and beliefs preceded Paul’s own teaching (46, 82, 125, 293), somewhat amazingly for him because this was not a major, oft-repeated conclusion at his time. Further, discussions of the historical “criteria” in Bultmann, as elsewhere at that time, still seem to be pretty much in their infancy, with little reason to get very far off the ground due to the prevailing presuppositions of the time. Few scholars requested or required historical backup, and most agreed with Bultmann and Barth by eschewing evidential considerations to ground faith. Nonetheless, Bultmann still references a few of these early items, such as Paul attesting that he had been an eyewitness of the risen Jesus (60), making him an apostle (56, 60, 181, 284), including his role as a witness alongside some of the other eyewitnesses who had been disciples of Jesus (56, 59, 61, 181, 284). Further, Bultmann mentions that some of these aspects were also primitive, dating back to the “earliest” church (above, 50, 295), including the important use of the Aramaic term Maranatha as a “formula-like invocation” (126).

7 The very mention of pre-Pauline creeds, hymns, and sermon summaries connotes the notion that these are at least potentially very early sources. Except for our treatment of the 1 Cor 15:3–7 tradition, further specific questions on the nature of these subjects, including especially how close to Jesus’s crucifixion and/or appearances they may have originated, will largely be reserved as much as possible for the next two chapters on the earliness of the third minimal fact.

8 These are actually two different considerations in the sense that one or the other could be present by itself. That is, the content of the reports could be reliable but actually decades later in origin, in which case even accuracy could be a difficult item to judge in epistemic terms. Likewise, the messages could be very early but erroneous. That they could contain both strongly attested data in addition to being very early is a double benefit.

9 This does not rule out the presence of other sorts of organized information-gathering that may have preceded the Gospels. See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, largely part 2 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, primarily chaps. 6–15 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

10 Some of the earliest and most detailed of the extended scholarly critical texts on the nature of these traditions actually extend back into Bultmann’s years. These include Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22). This text was previous published in both French as Les premières confessions de foi chrétiennes (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1943) as well as German, as Die ersten christlicher Glaubensbekenntnisse (Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1943). Other major studies include Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22); Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 8, n. 70). Likewise very helpful is the study by Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts. Other scholars at roughly this same time had also begun to employ these creedal traditions. One such example from a more critical perspective is John Knox’s volume Christ the Lord: The Meaning of Jesus in the Early Church (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1945).

11 To which Paul added his own appearance at the end of the lineup in verse 8. Paul also records his own noncreedal statement of the Lord Jesus’s appearance to him in 1 Cor 9:1.

12 As is well known in research, there are exceptions among scholars to virtually any well-known theory, emanating from both the liberal and conservative sides alike, as well as in between. Sometimes the comments are directed at similar views to one’s own and may only suggest slight changes, but probably more often, they are shots across the bow of what are perceived to be “invading forces.” After publishing a number of comments that certainly seemed to oppose his later moves—such as “Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?,” Religious Studies 27 (1991): 371–88, esp. 379, 383—Robert Price advanced the view that the key verses at the heart of many if not most conservative arguments for Jesus’s resurrection appearances, namely those in 1 Cor 15:3–11, were interpolated into the text later, but not by Paul. See Robert M. Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation,” Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995): particularly 90, also 91. The chief reason for this conclusion is that in Gal 1:11–12, Paul states that he did not get his gospel message from any man, whereas this is taken by Price to conflict with Paul’s own statement in 1 Cor 15:3. So Price’s conclusion is that Paul could not have written both 1 Cor 15:3 and Gal 1:1, 11–12 (74).

While making this argument, it must be acknowledged that Price is not overly dogmatic. In fact, he is even quite self-critical in several places. He acknowledges freely that not a single extant manuscript of 1 Corinthians evidences his view (93). In fact, while no early manuscripts support Price’s view, the complete chapter of 1 Cor 15:1–58 is represented among the earliest papyri (P46). See Shawn M. Barr, “Manuscript Evidence from the Second and Third Centuries,” Michigan Theological Journal 4 (1993): 134–49, esp. 140. Further, Price recognizes “stylistic and linguistic differences” in 1 Cor 15:3–11, but he also recognizes that “they could just as easily denote pre-Pauline tradition taken over by the apostle” (94), which is exactly what the majority of commentators think is one of the chief reasons that the text qualifies as an early creedal tradition! Then, while noting similarities in Irenaeus and Tertullian, Price again admits that these writers are “too late to make any difference” anyway (94)! One wonders why they were cited at all, then, since they count for the opposing position. Price repeats the same admissions in his chapter with the same title as this journal article, located in the volume The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 92–93.

All told, in a summary of his argument, Price does not produce a single supporting example of what might be called a historical or textual argument of any sort. In his concluding sentence he states this: “I venture to say that the emergent hypothesis, while it can in the nature of the case never be more than an unverifiable speculation,” still has some plausibility and is “one among many options” (94–95); see Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions,” 69–99. (Note: The page numbers listed at the beginning of the article are 69–99, though the pages were unnumbered with the page breaks seemingly indicating 69–109, counting the sources and the notes.)

Is Price conceding that he has very little textual data for his view with which to confront the strongest and most credible New Testament arguments? In other words, is the best comeback Price can offer against creedal and criteria-supported cases such as 1 Cor 15:1–7 to conclude that his thesis provides only an “unverifiable speculation” that is just an option?

Many other questions arise here too, in addition to the ones that Price himself mentions. For example, if the creedal text proper only extends through 1 Cor 15:3–7, then why do Price’s exempted verses extend to 15:8–11? After his conversion, Paul readily could have heard that the other apostles were preaching the same gospel message as he was, as in 15:11, without having gone to visit them. Then Price would not have had to get rid of these verses. However, it appears obvious that the convenient reason for his second move was to get rid of even more verses in the context that would otherwise only make the resurrection appearance data that much stronger by linking this testimony to the original eyewitnesses, as 15:11 does! For if the other apostles were witnesses to and preaching the same resurrection message that Paul was, as the preceding verses attest, then this testimony was available from more than one source. Further, since in Price’s view Paul stayed out of Jerusalem to avoid consulting with the other apostles after his conversion (Gal 1:16b–17a), what is wrong with Paul still wishing to connect with the others after a full three years (1:18)? Paul would still have claimed that the initial revelation came at the instigation of the Lord alone, as in fact he did claim already in 1:15–16. Then on Price’s view, are we to conclude that Paul never met or heard personally the testimony of any of the other apostles (as particularly in the cases of Gal 2:11–14 or 1 Cor 9:5–6; cf. Acts 15)? After all, unity in the church is crucial too, as Paul points out in Gal 2:1–10 plus 1 Cor 15:11, which is a perfectly good reason to interview the others at a later date. And if that happened, it would be exceptionally difficult to deny that they ever exchanged testimonies regarding their personal resurrection appearances, since these occupy the very heart of the Christian faith, as Paul also teaches clearly (1 Cor 15:11–19).

Moreover, Ehrman raises another very serious problem for Price without mentioning him by name. Ehrman bemoans the tendency among Jesus mythicists who too often simply delete passages that trouble them in their arguments against Christians, giving several examples and charging tongue in cheek that “surely the best way to deal with evidence is not simply to dismiss it when it happens to be inconvenient.” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 55 (see chap. 2, n. 15). Somewhat humorously, Ehrman terms these moves the “scholarship of convenience” and asserts that when the Pauline wording in question exists in every single manuscript with “no textual evidence” to the contrary (as we saw above was even admitted by Price), then “Paul almost certainly wrote [the words].” Ehrman adds that if the mythicists are correct in these deletions, then “it is passing strange that [the early Christian authors] were not more thorough in doing so, for example, by inserting comments about Jesus’s virgin birth . . . his miracles . . . and so forth” (132–33). Ehrman then pushes even a little further: “If historical evidence proves inconvenient to one’s views, then simply claim that the evidence does not exist, and suddenly you’re right” (118; similarly, 59, 191, 253)! Few critiques have been harder hitting or more devastating than what we might term the hermeneutics of convenience, especially when this charge is directed to Price from an atheist New Testament commentator like Ehrman! Similarly, Dale Allison likewise chides Price for his “unpersuasive” argument which “demands that the whole section be excised as secondary.” Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234n134 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Allison also repeats this criticism in his later volume, Resurrection of Jesus, 37n83 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

13 Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:30–32; 10:39–43; 13:30–31; and perhaps 17:31. In general, compared to texts like 1 Cor. 15:3–7, few scholars address the Acts sermon summaries to any great degree, especially not with much commentary. For many excellent details, see Dodd’s discussion in Apostolic Preaching, esp. 16–31, 33–36. Cf. also Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 165–71 (see chap. 9, n. 12). Strangely, Marion L. Soards’s volume, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), largely avoids the relevant subjects and issues, though 200–201 include a few comments. See also Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 24, 34–43; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 120–24, 144–45; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 112, 232, 261–62; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 225–29 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Johnson, Living Jesus, 34 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

14 In this specific list of resurrection creeds, verses that simply record that Jesus was “raised” are not included. However, a few of these briefer mentions do occur in the next list of general traditions.

15 As already noted, Bultmann even discusses a number of these creeds, conceding that they dated from the earliest church, though he mitigates the force of that acknowledgment by stating his view that these traditions were derived from Christian sources that were more influenced by Hellenistic rather than Jewish ideas. See Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 50, 295. Hence they were tainted by pagan ideas rather than retaining their original meanings that came from Jesus to his disciples. This was standard fare for many critical scholars in Bultmann’s orbit of influence and beyond, reaching back into late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century religionsgeschichtliche Schule of thought, where the earliness of these creedal sources might mean very little if they are treated as being due to Hellenistic and thus pagan influence, unlike what the original disciples meant by their ideas. A huge shift began when it was realized by scholars that these creedal sources actually might be both exceptionally early and authoritative, due precisely to their being the teaching of the earliest apostles rather than being pagan-influenced ideas.

The most influential scholar in the earlier movement was Wilhelm Bousset, especially from his study Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (1913; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970). But scholarship has come a very long way on these questions since these early critical works. This can be witnessed in another well-known adherent who was similar to Bousset, namely, Otto Pfleiderer. One of his texts, The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Significance and Value in the History of Religion (London: Williams and Norgate, 1905) indiscriminately grouped large numbers of religious myths together for over 150 pages with hardly a nod to the dates of these works or other crucial data that are needed for proper evaluation. For instance, if the texts in question postdate Christianity, as so many of them do, this is an entirely different matter.

The evidence of the growing dissatisfaction with these ideas late in Bultmann’s career could be seen even when Bultmann himself wrote the introduction to the fifth edition of Bousset’s classic work in 1964. After noting his own highest admiration for this work, including a half dozen contributions that Bousset had made to critical theories, Bultmann then lists a major criticism. He rather oddly comments that “the correctness of Bousset’s total view . . . is in no way dependent upon the correctness of this thesis.” Bultmann then adds, “It can be regretted above all that in his presentation, essential motifs of the New Testament, especially of Pauline theology, have not been brought into operation adequately.” Bultmann ends the introduction basically by saying that in spite of other issues, the History of Religions school of thought still contributed much to “a better understanding of the New Testament.” This introduction is included in the Abingdon edition cited above, and Bultmann’s comments appear on 8–9.

However, things have changed quite considerably since Bultmann’s comments a little over a half century ago. Today, one might have to look for some time to find many critical scholars who would agree with Bousset’s, Pfleiderer’s, or Bultmann’s positions on these issues. It seems like quite a stretch to allow that the creeds are from the earliest church, as Bultmann does, but then to attribute them to such distant, alternate Hellenistic sources, when nearer historical precedents are more likely, especially when there is a direct line of thought from what we know of Jesus’s teachings to the pre-Pauline ideas in the earliest epistles. This in fact is one of the reasons why a Jerusalem provenance for the majority of these traditions makes much more sense to today’s scholars. Further, the entire Jewish-Hellenistic bifurcation has largely been rejected, at least diverging mightily from the way it was cited decades ago.

Additional, subsequent, heavy criticisms of Bultmann’s ideas after his day are also telling. For an overview of some of the issues, see Wright’s summary of the rather drastic crash of the old Hellenistic theses in Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 365–76. For specific details, compare the already classic rejoinders by W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 26–34 for example (see chap. 5, n. 19). Also, Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns in Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2017) devotes much of part 2 and the conclusion to a lengthy (over 100 pages), intricate discussion that frequently interacts with and critiques Bultmann’s ideas. Perhaps the most influential study that completely altered the notions of clean distinctions between Jewish versus Hellenistic ideas is Martin Hengel’s lengthy work Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1974). For Larry Hurtado’s critique of Bousset’s version of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, see “New Testament Christology: A Critique of Bousset’s Influence,” Theological Studies 40 (1970): 306–17; plus Hurtado’s text, How on Earth, 13–30 (see chap. 9, n. 32). For Ehrman’s strong critique of Bousset’s and Pfleiderer’s theses regarding the likelihood of mystery religions influencing earliest Christian ideas, see Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 207–30, also 26, 131–32, 256–58.

16 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 578 (emphasis added). We will return below to Bauckham’s own treatment of this issue in much detail, taken from 264–71. It also should be noted here that all quotations of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses except for the one noted above are from the first edition of Bauckham’s work. Comments such as Bauckham’s appear often in the critical literature, as we will see below, as with James Ware’s similar article.

17 For a number of major scholarly examples here, Ehrman places Paul’s conversion around AD 32–33 in Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144, 157, 246, 261; How Jesus Became God, 138, 213. Dunn dates Paul’s persecution of the church (as per Gal 1:23) to perhaps eighteen months after Jesus’s crucifixion (see Jesus Remembered, 837n51), and Paul’s conversion at about six months later, or at two to three years after the crucifixion (142–43, 212, 826n4, 855–56, 864). Dunn argues that this dating is well established by several factors, such as the timing of Gal 1:17 with Acts 9:3–8; 22:6–11; and 26:12–20, which is sufficient “to put the matter beyond reasonable doubt” in Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 352, 374, with the quoted material here from 346. Hurtado thinks that “common scholarly consent” places the beginning of Christian persecution, including Paul’s activity, at about a year after the crucifixion, and Paul’s conversion at about two years after Jesus’s death; see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 59 (see excursus 1, n. 95); cf. One God, One Lord, 4 (see excursus 1, n. 95). For Hurtado, Paul’s conversion could even conceivably have come a year after Jesus’s death, but certainly no more than a few years later; see How on Earth, 33, 35. Similar to Hurtado, Barnett places Paul’s conversion at one year after the crucifixion, though he dates Jesus’s death at AD 33, so while it is still a year later, Paul’s conversion occurred about 34. See Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42, 93 (see excursus 1, n. 94), and for Barnett’s crucifixion date of 33, see 93n9. Cf. also Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 26 (see chap. 1, n. 23). James Tabor is a bit of an outlier here, dating Paul’s conversion at “around the year A.D. 36 . . . that puts Paul’s conversion around seven years after Jesus’ crucifixion; the controversial volume is Jesus Dynasty.

18 Amazingly detailed studies have been written on Paul’s term historēsai in Gal 1:18 along with the verb historeō, from histōr. See Friedrich Büchsel, “ἱστορέω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:391–96 (see chap. 7, n. 61). Büchsel makes many worthwhile distinctions, among them that these terms were utilized by such Greek intellectual giants as Aristotle, Thales, Heraclitus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Homer, and Hippocrates (391–92, 394), and similar ideas were used later in Latin by Roman scholars such as Pliny the Elder. The connected Greek meanings revolved chiefly around the notions of an “enquiry” or “investigation” (391–92), the pursuit of knowledge as well as its application (391). But “certainly” no later than Aristotle and probably earlier by Herodotus, the terms “came to be used for ‘history’” (392). It “fit in well with what we know of as the rise of Greek historical writing” (393). But Büchsel thinks that Greek historiography had its limitations since Greek thought was more inclined toward philosophy (393–94). However, it was the early Christians who attached their truths to “the historical element which had to be recounted” (394). The Christians emphasized chiefly oral and also written tradition. Among a few other texts, Büchsel mentions specifically 1 Cor 15:3ff.; 15:11; 11:2; and 11:23ff. along with Gal 1:9, 18, where the emphasis was placed on “the certainty and accuracy of this information,” such as having “to accept the testimony of accredited witnesses” (395). These trends included “Luke’s historical skill,” as with the speeches in Acts (394–96). For example, Büchsel ends his article by stating that “Paul took a great interest in the purity and accuracy of the tradition” (396).

19 Another critical scholar, William Farmer, studied the meaning of historēsai in Gal 1:18 regarding the hint it provides in determining the nature of Paul’s inquiring of the apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem. For Farmer, this action linked Paul’s visit to the apostolic, Petrine tradition. See Farmer, “Peter and Paul, and the Tradition Concerning ‘The Lord’s Supper’ in I Cor. 11:23–25,” Criswell Theological Review 2 (1987): esp. 122–30 and 135–38 for these apostolic conclusions. G. D. Kilpatrick examines these terms in “Galatians 1:18 ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 144–49, drawing similar conclusions. Historian Paul Barnett favors “to enquire” as the basic meaning of historēsai and company, also citing Herodotus and adding Polybius and Plutarch; see Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–42. Dunn favors the idea that Paul’s intended purpose was “to get to know Cephas.” Meanwhile, Dunn still acknowledges that such knowledge “must surely have included his experience as a disciple of Jesus and his memoirs of Jesus’ ministry.” After all, getting to know Peter “includes a considerable element of getting to know about that something or someone.” See Dunn, “Once More—Gal 1:18: Ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν in Reply to Otfried Hofius,” in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1985): 138. Cf. also Greek specialist A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), who comments that the meaning is “(from histor, one who knows by inquiry), to gain knowledge by visiting” (280). For some similar thoughts, see Joseph Doré, “La résurrection de Jésus: A l’épreuve du discours théologique,” Recherches de science religieuse 65, no. 2 (1977): 291n11.

20 The issues and scholars working through the introductory issues in Galatia are addressed by many researchers across the scholarly spectrum, including Luke Timothy Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 303–8 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 289–93 (see chap. 6, n. 81); Ehrman, New Testament, 303–9 (see chap. 4, n. 34); D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 289–90, 295–96; Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 62–66.

21 The situation with 1 Cor 11:23–26 likely fits in here closely as well as another early creedal tradition that may well have come to Paul from Peter and James in Jerusalem during this same visit too (though of course we do not know this for sure), which features the additional phrase “from the Lord” (apo tou Kyriou). Some have suggested that these added words may simply have meant that Paul received this eucharistic text during a revelatory moment, though Bauckham states, “Paul certainly does not mean that he received this tradition by immediate revelation from the exalted Lord”; see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 267. Nonetheless, an earlier oral creedal option is especially more likely here in light of the comment in the very same chapter (11:2) concerning the other traditions (paradoseis) that Paul reports he delivered (paredōka) to the Corinthians. Moreover, the same technical terms for passing on tradition in 11:23 as in 15:3 (parelabon and paredōka) favor early oral creeds being passed along, just as is also the case with so many other creeds that are found in Paul’s Epistles. In light of these considerations, then, another early creedal reception along with the possibility of still other traditions may have been delivered to Paul from this same visit in Jerusalem, making the most sense of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11:23 too.

22 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 40.

23 There is more than one reason why exact verses are not always specified when referring to this passage. Some commentators think that the material here is not all uniform, or that Paul may have combined more than one early creed, and/or that both creed and non-creed are present (this applies especially to German scholars, as with Wolfhart Pannenberg’s questions in Jesus: God and Man, 90 [see chap. 1, n. 19]). Others think that the most ancient portion of this creed consists only of 15:3–5, as with Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection, Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation, 15 (see chap. 8. n. 17); and Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 139. Still others think that the creedal statement contains two or more creeds, such as Reginald H. Fuller outlines in The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1980), chiefly 14–30; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 249, perhaps with a few words added here and there, as with Fuller just above, 11. Some of these views may be combined as well.

24 Examples of the sometimes surprising list of scholars who hold that the creedal text itself in 1 Cor 15:3–5, or its content, probably predates Paul’s conversion include Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454, pertaining to at least the “components of the list” of appearances (see chap. 4, n. 84). Similarly, such a dating for this creedal portion or its contents is implied or stated even in the writings of prominent atheist New Testament scholars such as Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–40 in particular; also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 146, 251, 261, 290. Other major critical scholars who agree include Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149, who seem to think this is likely (see excursus 1, n. 19); as well as Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 95; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 90; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855, 864; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, cf. 26; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 47, cf. 51; Hurtado, How on Earth, 36, cf. 31; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71.

25 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, emphasis added.

26 Again, this applies to a number of even quite radical scholars who concede this general point, such as Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38; Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,” 48; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 251, 261, 290, as do many other major researchers such as Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855; and Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 319 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

27 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234.

28 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855.

29 Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Green (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1977), 125.

30 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144.

31 Ehrman, 145–46.

32 Ehrman, 131, 249, 251.

33 For just two of many such examples, see Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 17–19 (see chap. 2, n. 33); Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 221–23 in outline form (see chap. 4, n. 2).

34 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 36, where the definition of “red” is reported. The statements regarding Paul’s experience are on 454 and elsewhere (such as 452, 458, 533). It is crucial to note that the Jesus Seminar’s position here pertains to Paul’s having had some sort of real religious experience, but without endorsing that they think Paul actually saw the risen Jesus.

35 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 36, for the definition of pink and the statements about Peter on pages 453–54, 533. Again, as with Paul, the Jesus Seminar thinks that it is Peter’s experience that is “probably reliable” rather than his actually having seen Jesus.

36 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 454, cf. 533.

37 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 449–55, 533.

38 As we will see immediately below, one of the strongest series of comments on this subject is intriguingly enough by Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 225, 229–32 (see chap. 5, n. 43). Ehrman also states these things in How Jesus Became God, 148–49, 183–89.

39 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, esp. 229–31 and elsewhere; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454, 458–59, 533, among other texts.

40 Even the late, sometimes outspoken atheist philosopher Michael Martin admitted, “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.” Martin, Case against Christianity, 81 (see chap. 2, n. 28). Other examples from among the many critical scholars who make this comment include Roy W. Hoover, “Was Jesus’ Resurrection an Historical Event?,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook, ed. Bernard Brandon Scott (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008), 78; Wedderburn Beyond Resurrection, 14 (see chap. 1, n. 42).

41 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 145, also 148.

42 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 36, 454.

43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 46–49.

44 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 88–93, 125.

45 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, where this is argued throughout, with a few examples being found on 74, 151, 251, 262, 269, 291; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 93–94, 103, 133.

46 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230, emphasis added.

47 James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” New Testament Studies 60 (2014): 475 (emphasis added).

48 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, where these matters are discussed on 264–71. The initial quotation above is from 265, while the other words, including Bauckham’s emphasis, are from 266. He cites the term consensus on 266 from Eriksson and refers further (without quoting from them) to Martin Hengel and A. M. Schwemer’s volume, Paul between Damascus and Antioch, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1997), 147.

49 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 304–5, from the chapter raising the question, “Anonymous Tradition or Eyewitness Testimony?” (see chap. 12, 290–318). For a direct statement that Paul received this material from Peter and James, see also 268, 271.

50 Bauckham, 307–8.

51 By this semi-authoritative role on behalf of an apostle, whether or not these traditional relationships actually obtained behind two of the Synoptic Gospels, one might consider John Mark writing under the apostle Peter (as per Papias) or Luke exercising Pauline influence (particularly as in the “we passages” of Acts). Though of a different sort again, other similar situations might be determined in John 21:24 between the apostle and a select few members of his community. Then, from the seven critically ascertained Pauline Epistles, other examples might exist between Paul and certain members of his group in Romans, such as with Timothy (Rom 16:21a), or Tertius (Rom 16:22), or Paul and Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1), or Paul and Timothy again (2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1; and Phlm 1:1), or Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). Other claimed cases include Paul, Silas, and Timothy (Col 1:1) or Peter and Silas (1 Pet 5:12).

52 Among other things, this parenthetical comment indicates that specific discussions regarding the possibilities of added words here and there, or the presence of more than one creed, need not detain us at this juncture. If substantially the same words are probably ascertained, all the better. But the bottom line on the factual contents is what is most in view here rather than the exactness of the original words.

53 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, especially chap. 2, plus 10–17, 20–21, 24–25, 32–33, 140–44. For a more recent study of these data, see Doug E. Taylor, Jesus before Constantine: The Church, Her Beliefs, and Her Apologetics (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 142.

54 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 382 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

55 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89.

56 Hoover, “A Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 129.

57 Hoover, “Was Jesus’ Resurrection an Historical Event?,” 78.

58 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454. Paul’s other comment in 1 Cor 9:1 that Jesus appeared to him is likewise affirmed by these scholars (458). These scholars explain that the red rating indicates “historical reliability” that is “virtually certain” (36).

59 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 856. As Dunn states elsewhere after mentioning the importance of Paul’s testimony, “We are much closer to eyewitness testimony than is usually the case.” See Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 70. Dunn writes similarly in his little volume, Why Believe in Jesus’ Resurrection? (London: SPCK, 2016), 4, cf. 10.

60 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864.

61 Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:235 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

62 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16.

63 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

64 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, emphasis added.

65 Ehrman, 261.

66 Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), 341.

67 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 40.

68 Given the explicit mention here that the second meeting did indeed concern the gospel message, this once again argues that this subject must have come up earlier in Gal 1:18–20.

69 Not to get ahead of ourselves in another way, but of these four early leaders, the most influential persons in the early church, we have first-century sources for the martyrdoms of three of them: Paul, Peter, and James. Some also think that John was martyred, but these are questions for another time. The comment is only being made in the sense that, if it were true, this potentially provides additional force to the resurrection argument. But for now, this is for future consideration.

70 Concerning the wide range of contemporary scholarly agreement across various perspectives that the apostles held and proclaimed the same central components of the gospel proclamation, see Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38, 49; Lüdemann and Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 11, 13, 15 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 49; Casey, Jesus, 136 (see chap. 4, n 41); Alan F. Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection in Its Jewish Context,” New Testament Studies 44, no. 3 (1998): 416, cf. 404, 407, 415; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103–6 (see chap. 4, n. 47); Ehrman, New Testament, 308; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–46; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855–56, also, 143, 180–81; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 318–19, 372, also 439, 447–48; Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 168–69, 173, 175 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2, 86 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Doré, “La résurrection de Jésus,” 291n11 (see chap. 20, n. 19); Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 85, 86, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 266, 268, 271; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Historicity of the Resurrection and the Identity of Christ,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Gateway, 1984), 260; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” in Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 129, 132; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 2:355; Hengel, Atonement, 38, 69 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Theissen, Introduction to the New Testament, 52; Harris, Raised Immortal, 9 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 29–30; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:118, 3:219–20, cf. 3:146; Pheme Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 46, no. 1 (1992): 38; Peter J. Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers (1 Cor. XV 6),” Novum Testamentum 22 (1980): 283–84; Johnson, Real Jesus, 103, 118 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 107 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 121 (see chap. 8, n. 73); Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 15 (see excursus 1, n. 85); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 227–28 (see chap. 2, n. 13); William Lane Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” Modern Theology 6 (1989): 61; Ben Witherington III, “Resurrection Redux,” 140 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 41–43, 126–27, 142; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 136 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8 (see excursus 1, n. 96).

71 On these Semitisms, see for example both Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, esp. 163–69, 177, as well as Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–21, 26–28.

72 For further important details on the sermon summaries, see again Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, primarily 16–31, and 16, 19, 21, 24, 26, 31 in particular for these references to the traditional material.

73 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261–62; also 111, 130–31, 251, 290–91.

74 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38. Dunn, Why Believe in Jesus’ Resurrection?, 4; and Hurtado in How on Earth, 4, 30, 36; both state that the resurrection testimony began just days after the crucifixion, and many other critical scholars speak quite similarly.

75 For further attestation and discussion of these arguments, including various component parts, see the following sources by Gary R. Habermas: “Jesus Did Rise from the Dead,” esp. 471–73 (see chap. 4, n. 4); “A Recent Attempt to Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus and Supernatural Beliefs,” Journal of Theological Studies 69 (2018): 191–97; “Resurrection Research,” particularly 141–43 (see chap. 4, n. 4); “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 288–97 (see chap. 4, n. 4); Risen Jesus, 17–26 (see chap. 2, n. 33); “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, ed. Habermas and R. Douglas Geivett (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 1997), 262–75, 313–19; “The Case for Christ’s Resurrection,” in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 181–92; Historical Jesus, 152–57 (see chap. 3, n. 48).

76 Many critical scholars from across the scholarly spectrum, including atheists, have agreed in attesting, to various extents, the direct or indirect testimony of eyewitnesses or other good witnesses and their convictions that they at least thought they had seen the risen Jesus, and perhaps even did so. Those cited in this chapter include Michael Martin, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder, Maurice Casey, Helmut Koester, Pinchas Lapide, the members of the Jesus Seminar voting as a group, John Dominic Crossan, Howard Clark Kee, Dale Allison, James D. G. Dunn, John Meier, Martin Hengel, A. M. Schwemer, N. T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Luke Timothy Johnson, and James Ware, among still others. To this group of critical scholars may be added dozens of others like James G. Crossley, “The Resurrection Probably Did Not Happen,” in Moreland, Meister, and Sweis, Debating Christian Theism, 484–94; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 181; Hugo Staudinger, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ as Saving Event and as ‘Object’ of Historical Research,” Scottish Journal of Theology 36 (1983): 318; Stephen Davis, “Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?,” Philo 2.1 (1999): 55; Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 108, 110 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Maier, “Empty Tomb as History,” 5 (see chap. 1, n. 40). Moreover, we have also seen immediately above a list of many additional scholars who hold that the early apostles and witnesses agreed concerning the nature of this testimony. For more scholars, see the notes immediately below.

77 Habermas, “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 288–97.

78 In addition to the long list of scholars in the footnote just above, see Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 40–42nn76–87, particularly nn. 78 and 82–87 (though there is overlap here).

79 Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 97–99 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

80 Lapide, 92, 95–99, 125, 127–28, cf. 15–16.

81 Kee, What Can We Know, mostly 1–2 (emphasis added).

82 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 307–8.

83 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 223–24.

84 Dunn, 242–43.

85 Dunn, 176–81, 243, 854–57, 864–65, 882.

86 This number most likely refers to the name given to those who followed Jesus most closely, in spite of the death of Judas Iscariot and the later martyrdom of James, the brother of John and son of Zebedee. It could also point to the Acts report that the number was restored to twelve after Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas to testify regarding Jesus’s life from his baptism to his resurrection (1:21–22, 26).

87 Though other possible explanations of the head counts in the Gospels and Acts have been mentioned from time to time, such as the numbers being symbolic instead of literal or the authors actually meaning that no women or children were present, the regular tendency among recent commentators is to take the numbers in a straightforward manner. See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 268; Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 101, 123. According to the predominant approach, the number of individuals present on various occasions in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts are generally taken to be the feeding of 5,000 men (andres) (Mark 6:44; Matt 14:21), with 4,000 men being present during the next feeding (Matt 15:38; Mark 8:9). Likewise, the counts of early conversions in the early church as given in Acts 2:41 and 4:4 are again usually counted as the men (andrōn) who became believers. The chief point here is that these groups in general and, more particularly, the 500 male (adelphois) witnesses in 1 Cor 15:6 could actually have involved much larger numbers of persons. There could have been some rounding of the figures as well.

88 It is impossible to provide a more specific number here, but no doubt the group is larger than the “Twelve” but smaller than the 120 mentioned in Acts 1:15.

89 Namely, Luke 24:13–35 and “Pseudo-Mark 16:12–13.” See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 449.

90 Crossan counts the independent sources that cite a group appearance of the risen Jesus to all of his disciples as in his own numbering: (1) 1 Cor 15:5b, 7b; (2) Matt 28:16–20; (3a) Luke 24:36–39; (3b) John 20:19–21; and (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3:2b–3. (John is usually counted as an independent source from the Synoptics, in which case these would seem to count as five sources for the group sightings of the risen Jesus, as per the Jesus Seminar count of Luke 24 and John 20 in the next note below.) It may be wondered why Crossan does not list other group appearances to the apostles as noted in Acts 10:39–42, Gos. Pet. 9:1–10:5, and perhaps 1 Clem. 42. Additionally, one might be tempted to register a partial vote in the case of Mark’s very clearly knowing of at least one group appearance to all the disciples in Galilee (Mark 14:27–28; 16:7), even though it is not narrated, not to mention pseudo-Mark in Mark 16:14–20. See Crossan, Historical Jesus, 436 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

91 Intriguingly, Funk and the Jesus Seminar list these sources a little differently than Crossan, in spite of the latter being one of their chief members. The Seminar lists these independent sources for Jesus’s major group appearances to his disciples as pseudo-Mark 16:14–18; Matt 28:16–20; Luke 24:36–39; John 20:19–23 (Acts of Jesus, 449), but Funk and the Seminar also mention Paul, Acts, and “Secret James” (though with unspecified texts) on 452, while Ignatius is left out from Crossan’s list. This would total at least eight sources that mention groups of apostolic witnesses that saw the risen Jesus when 1 Cor 15:3–5 is also included, as the Seminar also does several times with the list of appearances in 1 Cor 15:3–7. As mentioned concerning Crossan, it would seem that other passages in Acts, like the sermon summary in 10:39–42, the resurrection appearance predictions in Mark as clear harbingers, and perhaps 1 Clem. 42 should also be included in these lists. Breaking these appearance accounts down into other categories, the Seminar counts eight “simple reports,” mostly consisting of creedal texts, three “concise stories,” three “intermediate stories,” and four legendary accounts (450). Summarizing these experiences from yet another angle, these appearances of Jesus total five to individuals and seven more to groups (452).

92 Besides those already mentioned, a couple of other skeptical New Testament scholars here include atheist Gerd Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 30, and agnostic Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 14.

93 Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 25–28, 71.

94 Crossan has taken this stance quite often, such as John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), “Opening Statement,” 25, “Dialogue,” 33, “Appendix: Bodily-Resurrection Faith,” 175–76; Crossan, “The Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 29–57, particularly 29, 46–51, 55–56; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, esp. 6–10, 173, 296, 341–345.

95 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 452.

96 The three independent texts listed by the Jesus Seminar for this resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene include Matt 28:9–10; John 20:11–18; and pseudo-Mark 16:9–11; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 449. Another skeptical New Testament scholar, Helmut Koester, states, “We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect.” He then mentions Paul, Peter, James, and Mary Magdalene as the appearances which “cannot very well be questioned” and concerning which scholars may be the most assured. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.

97 The three independent texts that record the appearance to Peter according to Crossan’s numbering are (1) 1 Cor 15:5a; (2a) Luke 24:12; (2b) John 20:2–10; (3) Luke 24:34; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3:2a; and (5) John 21:15–23. See Crossan, Historical Jesus, 435. As with the comment above, this assumes that the accounts of disciples running to the tomb in Luke 24 and John 20 draw from the same source, when a number of critical scholars disagree here, concluding that they are similar but different accounts, with John’s being much more detailed. Stranger yet, Jesus does not appear to the men at the tomb in either passage (but see Luke 24:24 above)! Hence, the five sources mentioned by Crossan here seem to really only number four.

98 According to Crossan, the texts for James’s appearance are numbered (1) 1 Cor 15:7a; (2) Gos. Thom. 12 (where Crossan apparently derives James’s leadership of the disciples from Jesus’s appearance to him (see Historical Jesus, 251); and (3) Gospel of the Hebrews 7. See Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 436, though it is difficult to find much in the Gospel of Thomas reference, leaving just two sources. Ehrman and the majority of commentators chiefly emphasize the appearance to James in the context of the 1 Cor 15:7 creedal tradition; Ehrman, Jesus, 201, 229.

99 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454–55, with the definitions “virtually certain” for red and “probably reliable” for pink entries on 36.

100 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454.

101 Influential Emory University New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has often been critical of recent studies of the historical Jesus, as the subtitle of his book here indicates. Still, he refers to the value of the criterion of multiple attestation, used throughout this chapter, as “inarguable.” Johnson, Real Jesus, 24. The Jesus Seminar also recognizes the crucial nature of multiple independent attestation; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 25–26. Ehrman is yet another skeptical scholar who values multiple independent sources as among the best of the indications of historicity. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 290–91. It is easily among the best-regarded of the New Testament criteria for ascertaining authentic traditions.

102 For example, in Real Jesus, Luke Timothy Johnson refers to the Jesus Seminar’s “ten-year exercise in academic self-promotion,” which “stands as a far better example of media manipulation than of serious scholarship” (1). Johnson refers to the Seminar’s founder, Robert Funk, as “a strange combination of grandiosity and hucksterism” (8) and quotes well-known scholar Howard Clark Kee as calling the Seminar “an academic disgrace” (18)!

103 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 1, 36.

104 Thus, it should be noted carefully that speaking or voting positively concerning particular historical events and sayings in the life of Jesus by no means indicates that critical scholars automatically think either that those particular events actually occurred or especially that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his followers. For instance, naturalistic theories like those that have been mentioned and discussed throughout this study could be supposed in place of the actual resurrection, even though these efforts are opposed by many of the objections that have been identified here and appear at present to be growing more uncommon. Or the conclusion could also be a straight rejection of particular events without any reasons being given at all. Whatever the reasons, the Jesus Seminar makes multiple comments that are quite opposed to the conclusion of literal appearances of the risen Jesus, such as their clearly stated, overarching principle 12, that afterlife comments in Jesus’s life are not admissible. See Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 25 (see chap. 2, n. 19), or several of the conclusions likewise made after Jesus’s death; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 461–62. Basically, the list of prior presuppositions and other conclusions makes points like these: Jesus actually said or did nothing after his death; Jesus’s resurrection did not involve the resuscitation of his corpse; Jesus’s body decayed in the tomb like all dead bodies; no appearances could have been recorded on camera; these sorts of events do not happen; and being a Christian does not depend on believing in a literal resurrection.

It should likewise be noted here in the most general terms that some scholars stand in between these two positions in one way or another, chiefly by holding that Jesus truly did rise from the dead and appear to his disciples, but in a non-bodily manner. The most popular version during nineteenth-century German liberalism was found chiefly in the work of Theodor Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, in ihrer Verhaltung mit dem Gesamtleben seines Volkes frei untersucht und ausführlich erzählt, 3 vols. (Zurich: Verlag von Orell, Füssli, 1867–1872), esp. 3:602–3. His thesis is described in detail in our treatment of German liberalism in the next volume of this study. In the twentieth century, two of the most influential and similar versions here were those by German theologian Hans Grass in his text Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 231–32; also, 119, 242; and, several years later, the volume by New Testament scholar Reginald Fuller in Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, esp. 46–49, also 169–172, 181. Like Keim, Grass and Fuller were highly influential in popularizing this position in greater detail, with all three scholars holding that Jesus was actually raised from the dead and really appeared to his followers, though in a non-bodily, non-evidential manner. Unlike Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:533–70; and Grass Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 93, 119, 232, Fuller accepted the historicity of the empty tomb based on the early reports (48–49, 69–70).

Crucially for our discussions, however, many of today’s skeptical scholars allow as historical the best of the evidence while still rejecting the actual appearances themselves. In these moves, they thereby stand opposed to other critical scholars, like Keim, Grass, Fuller, and still others who accepted the textual indications and non-bodily appearances of the risen Jesus while still affirming that Jesus actually appeared in a more spiritual form, while those like Craig, Wright, Licona, and others (whose views are discussed throughout this study) accept the texts and the evidences as well as the bodily appearances! It is amazing that all three views share the high regard for the historical data like that in 1 Cor 15:1–11 and many other texts as well, while coming to different conclusions.

105 This apostolic agreement preceded Paul’s report that Peter on another occasion was being inconsistent in his treatment of the Gentile believers in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). The former agreed-upon report concerned the gospel theology, while the latter discussion was about behavior.

106 Helmut Koester dates Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem in AD 48, or approximately eighteen years after the crucifixion of Jesus and still two years before the writing of 1 Thessalonians. See Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103.

107 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–48, quotations on pages 144–45.

108 Ehrman, 46, 49, 70–71, 290–91.

109 Ehrman, 46–47, 101.

110 Many comments like this are made by Ehrman in a series of volumes, often featuring overly bombastic titles and subtitles such as: Jesus before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior (see chap. 8, n. 74). This should not be surprising on more than one front, given Ehrman’s own critical comments such as Did Jesus Exist?, 5, 35–37, 71, 94–95, 143. This is especially the case when he explains, “The only thing I attack in my writings (and not even directly) is a fundamentalist and conservative evangelical understanding of Christianity” (35). When he chooses to make general characterizations of the data, as he does in the subtitle above, he does not always indicate that he is sometimes talking about authors beyond the New Testament canon, gnostics included, many of whose works were condemned. If the reader misunderstands these things, it could easily be supposed that Ehrman is speaking solely of problems in the canonical sources.

But on the other hand, Ehrman often explains and mitigates his overall negative comments on several occasions and in distinct ways, though readers may need to look carefully for these often-brief clarifications. For instance, another of his texts with an explosive title, Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), contains a question and answer section where Ehrman points out that he largely agrees with his Princeton Seminary mentor, preeminent Greek scholar Bruce Metzger, that no central or major Christian doctrines or beliefs would suffer change based on which way the various textual matters were decided or resolved (252–53). Then Ehrman adds that most variants are not problematic at all and that the majority of these examples merely involve spelling errors! Thus, the “vast majority” of variations are “insignificant” and unimportant (259–60). One certainly wonders again, Why use the bombshell-type book titles, as if to point out that Christian foundations developed in a high-risk zone?

In still another text with an explosive title, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), Ehrman even concedes, “Virtually all of the problems with what I’ve been calling forgeries can be solved” if the secretaries who are listed frequently in New Testament writings played major roles (134)! So, significant assistance from what may have been “junior authors” or even “co-authors” assisting the canonical authors could potentially take care of “virtually all of the problems” in this forgery-type category? Does this indicate that before these accusations are published quite so loudly, critical scholars should spend more time clarifying the possibilities that Ehrman mentions here?

As commented earlier in this chapter, the majority view among researchers today could still be that John Mark wrote the Second Gospel, even with major influence from the apostle Peter (as per the testimony of Papias or in a new research work that will be discussed more in other places in this study). Or likewise, should the potential influence of Paul on Luke be thought through carefully (as in the so-called “we passages” in Acts or elsewhere) when this could affect mightily the two longest New Testament writings? Or what are we to make of the situation in John 21:24 where scholars have often thought that members of a Johannine community may be attesting to the truth of the testimony in the Fourth Gospel? Quite crucially, what relationship may have existed between Paul’s accredited Epistles and his other companions, such as Timothy, Tertius, Sosthenes, or Silas? There are also the additional cases claimed between Paul, Silas, and Timothy (Col 1:1), or in what may be a more important case with Peter and Silas (1 Pet 5:12), given what may be stronger Greek influence in this epistle.

True, these cases have been known for a long time and conclusions are not always arrived at easily. Of course, we will never know exactly the relationship between these writers. But these much more positive and at least potentially problem-solving messages could have been given a much more prominent role and spelled out in more detail, rather than the headlines that seemed to proclaim virtual disaster, gross negligence, and error in the New Testament canon! A little more mention and more prominent, highlighted explanations would have been helpful as well.

In still another writing, Ehrman recognizes that the present state of the Greek New Testament text is strong enough that we can presently assert that the critical text should remain rather permanent, meaning that “it is virtually inconceivable that the character of our Greek New Testaments will ever change significantly.” This indicates the unlikelihood that significant new problems could arise moving forward, at least from what can be known now. See Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 825.

111 In the history of Greco-Roman times from before to after Jesus, ancient scholars were convinced that the events still could be written accurately. This conviction was held despite their having to decipher ancient occurrences from the contradictions, prejudices, and conflicting data. For these details, Breisach, in Historiography, points out that despite subjective and conflicting data (27, 30, 58, 64–65, 68–69, 73), ancient historians still studied the evidence, especially the material from the eyewitnesses, and sought to reconstruct the events (38, 57–58, 64, 67, 72–73, 75–76, cf. 408–10). Cf. also P. A. Brunt, “Introduction,” in Thucydides, The Peloponnesian Wars, trans. Benjamin Jowett, ed. P. A. Brunt (New York: Pocket Books, 1963), ix, xxvii–xxviii, xxxiv, esp. xxii–xxv, 1, 11–13; Moses Hadas, “Introduction,” in The Complete Works of Tacitus, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, ed. Moses Hadas (New York: Random House, 1942), contrast ix, xi, xiii, xvi–xvii, xix with xiv, xvi–xix; Robert Graves, “Foreword,” in Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves, ed. E. V. Rieu (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957), 7; R. M. Ogilvie, “Introduction,” in Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt, ed. by E. V. Rieu (Middlesex: Penguin, 1960); Edmund Fuller, ed., Plutarch: Lives of the Noble Greeks (New York: Dell, 1959), 269–71, 329, 348–49. For a recent and major study that compares chiefly the historical biographies of Plutarch with the New Testament Gospels, see Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 43).

112 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 290–91, also 163, along with many other texts here; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 174.

113 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 227–32 along with the quotation on 231; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 7, 48, 132–33, 149, 174, 183–210.

114 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 131, 141, 156–57, 251, 254, 260–63, cf. also 27, 92–93, 97, 132, 141, 144–45, 163–64, 170–73.

115 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230–32; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 131–33, 108–9.

116 For Paul, see Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 229–30; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–31, 246, 261; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 192, 203. Regarding James, see Ehrman, Jesus, 229; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 192, 203.

117 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 228–31.

118 Starting from an initial commitment to Jesus Christ and then progressing onward to some hard-hitting applications of this initial faith-surrender, numerous thinkers today have responded in a variety of areas, including: N. T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections of Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship (see excursus 1, n. 34); Vernard Eller, The Simple Life: The Christian Stance toward Possessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973). A modern classic here is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, rev. ed., trans. Reginald H. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1959). For some stimulating ideas on the relation between Jesus’s teachings and productive living both here and beyond, see also David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah, 2010); Gene A. Getz, A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions (Chicago: Moody, 1990).

119 As an eyewitness to an appearance of the resurrected and glorified Jesus, the other noncreedal texts that Paul shares on this topic are also very important. The crucial nature of 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8 has already been mentioned. They can hardly be overestimated and will come up often. It has been argued throughout this entire study that Paul clearly thought Jesus had been raised and appeared in a bodily manner. Texts like 1 Cor 15:3–7, 12, 35–57 are crucial in this regard. So are other passages such as Rom 8:11, 18–23; Phil 3:20–21; 1 Thess 4:14–18, along with still others. These will not be pursued further here, except to note that Paul does contribute many crucial resurrection texts in addition to bringing the many creedal traditions into the light.

120 Knox, Christ the Lord, 63.

121 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450, 452, 569.

122 Concerning Paul, for those critical scholars who only count as authentic the seven undisputed Epistles, then the following writings also should be included in the total count as referring to the resurrection appearances: Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Timothy. Several canonical books apparently contain no direct references to Jesus’s resurrection or appearances, such as 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Sometimes these texts make rather direct hints, even coming close to straightforward comments about the resurrected Jesus (such as 1 John 3:2 and 2 Pet 1:11, 14 in conjunction with John 21:18–19). But each of these short epistles (none is longer than five chapters and half are only one chapter long) makes comments throughout that could not be written in the manner it was had the author been unaware of the resurrection. Many examples from these books include the full assurance that Jesus was currently alive and well, such as 2 Thess 1:2, 7b–10; 2:1, 8, 16–17; 3:3–5, 16; Phlm 3; Jas 5:7–9; 2 Pet 2:9; 3:10, 18; 1 John 1:3; 2:1, 24; 3:24; 5:12–13, 20; 2 John 3, 9; 3 John 7 (as used in Jas 2:7; 1 Pet 4:16); and Jude v. 1. The resurrection followed by Jesus’s glorification provides by far the best explanation for these comments and teachings.

123 Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 96–97 (see chap. 6, n. 70).

124 Koester intriguingly thinks that Ignatius’s account of the disciples touching the risen Jesus preserves what “can be shown to derive from an older tradition” than Luke’s text. See Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:68.

125 The dates of the epistles written by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp are agreed upon quite readily by the majority of critical scholars. A couple of examples include Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:57–59, 145, 288, 306; and Ehrman, New Testament, 331, 415, 418.

126 This according to Crossan, Historical Jesus, 430–31; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:5, 49; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 79; Ehrman, New Testament, 415.

127 The numbering of these texts in the Gospel of Peter is taken from Raymond Brown’s translation The Gospel of Peter, Early Christian Writings, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html. Regarding the date of the Gospel of Peter, Ehrman places it at about AD 120 in New Testament, 44, while Bock dates it to the mid-second century in The Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Koester notes that this Gospel was hardly if at all known until shortly before AD 200; see his Introduction to the New Testament, 2:162–64.

128 Bock, Missing Gospels, 218 and Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 71. Crossan takes a minority position and dates the Gospel of Hebrew at AD 50, being composed in Egypt (Historical Jesus, 428–29).

129 Even Bock in The Missing Gospels dates it to the late first or early second century (219). Koester notes the possibility of a fairly late date in the second century, but also exhibiting similarities to some first-century sayings. Koester, “Introduction to the Gospel of Thomas,” 117 (see chap. 6, n. 129). Ehrman prefers a date of 120 in New Testament, 44.

130 Among others, these possibilities are raised by James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101, no. 1 (1982): 23–24; Marcus Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” Bible Review 2 (1994): 49.

131 Robert Funk acknowledges the possibilities of Jesus’s death being foreshadowed in Gos. Thom. 55 in Honest to Jesus, 238 (see chap. 5, n. 7).

132 The numbering of the Q sayings here follows Robinson, ed., The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). Robinson’s quotation is from page xv. A companion volume that contains both Greek and English listings of the projected Q sayings with comparisons to other prominent Gospel texts is also provided in James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg with Milton C. Moreland, eds., The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002).

133 These twenty sources are Paul’s Epistles (counted only as a single source), the early pre-Pauline creedal traditions plus the Acts sermon summaries (also counting as just one source), Mark, Q, M, L, John, Hebrews, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, Revelation, pseudo-Mark, Josephus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, plus the Gospels of Peter and Thomas. The final early source count could change for different scholars, depending on questions such as how many of the thirteen Epistles that bear Paul’s name are thought to be authored by someone else. Actually, sticking with the virtually unanimous seven count of Paul’s Epistles would allow more potential source variety.

134 Examples of the resurrection used apocalyptically in Revelation include especially the scenes of the living Jesus returning on the clouds in Rev 1:7, apparently referring to the nations and people that rejected him, possibly even envisioning here the Roman soldiers at the crucifixion site who had pierced Jesus’s side and now could plainly see their mistake. Other key scenes involve the living Jesus being depicted as a previously slain and now alive lamb appearing before different groups of witnesses, including the triumphant scenes in heaven as depicted in Rev 5:6a, 9, 12; 7:14, 17. The chief witness and narrator throughout may be the book’s author. Traditionally, this individual was considered to be the apostle John, or secondarily, perhaps the enigmatic figure of John the Elder, another early church leader, or a different early disciple. This witness standing on the scene throughout Revelation 5 and elsewhere apparently represents the apostolic or other resurrection witnesses. Thus, the resurrected Jesus is observed in these heavenly scenes, pictured apocalyptically. Regarding the difficult authorship questions pertaining to Revelation and the potential identification of the chief witness throughout this text, especially concerning whether the apostle John or John the Elder might be candidates, see the following. Gerhard Maier asserts that the early testimony in favor of Revelation’s authorship is as robust as for any other New Testament writing; see Maier, Die Offenbarung des Johannes: Kapitel 1–11 (Giessen: Brunnen Verlag, 2009), 107–8; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 468–73; Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 452; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 932–48. An older commentary on this subject is Charles R. Erdman, The Revelation of John: An Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1936), 17–18. On John the Elder in general but not as the author of Revelation, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chap. 15.

135 Occasionally, critics suggest that embarrassing circumstances could purposely though falsely have been seeded into the Gospel accounts so that, in the long run, far more positive results may have been produced later in terms of assuring readers, incorrectly, that these things had really happened just as recorded. But at least three reasons militate strongly against theses of this nature. First, the authors would have been spreading untruths about Jesus himself. Thus, it would seem that if these writers had done this, Jesus would have been exempted and the examples would have come at the expense of the other characters. But they did not exempt Jesus. Why not? Second, even if done for the sake of the final finish line, horrible thoughts would still have been indelibly impressed in the reader’s minds—the damage would already have been completed. After all, did Peter the chief disciple really fail Jesus three times? Did the chief missionary and theologian in the church really persecute Christians for years, actually leading to some of their deaths? Did Jesus’s own brother and the pastor of the largest church in the ancient world truly fail to believe his older brother for years, and did he and his brothers even seem embarrassed when Jesus came to town, desiring to get him out of the public view? Did all the apostles fail Jesus in what some would interpret as a cowardly manner on several occasions? Now what are we to think of the character failures of these men? True, the lesson learned is that all men fail. But what about those on whom the church was built—should they not somehow have been above this? Then, most harmfully, what about the impressions that Jesus himself had his own questions in the face of death, as in Mark 15:34? How would that have affected readers of the Gospels, especially when this last example could not have been whisked away by saying that all men fail? Third, perhaps even if one could imagine just one of the Gospel writers miscalculating and taking this view, that all four out of four Gospel authors did so is a strong indication that this was not a mistake or failure of judgment on anyone’s part—these events really did occur. But then again, we are left with precisely the force of these embarrassing reports in the first place!

136 The question here is due to Luke 22:43 not being present in the Western manuscript tradition, though it does appear in other texts.

137 Mark 3:21–22, 31–35; 6:3; Matt 13:55–57; John 7:3–5.

138 Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6; cf. Acts 9:1–2; 22:3–5; 26:5, 9–11.

139 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; cf. 2 Cor 11:32–33; also Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18.

140 Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 38 (see chap. 2, n. 35), the origination of which Perrin attributes to Bultmann (40). The overall discussion is found on 38–43. One of Bultmann’s best-known disciples, Ernst Käsemann, emphasized this criterion in his seminal lecture and later publication of his encouragement to oppose Bultmann’s radical disinterest in the historical Jesus research, calling for a new pursuit and limited application of historical principles regarding Jesus’s life. Käsemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in The Historical Jesus Quest: Landmarks in the Search for the Jesus of History, ed. Gregory W. Dawes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 279–313, particularly 302–13; this essay was also reproduced in Käsemann’s volume, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964).

141 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 171, 176 with the discussion on 171–77 (see chap. 2, n. 35).

142 Ehrman, New Testament, 204; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291–92; Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 174–77.

143 Käsemann, “Problem of the Historical Jesus,” 302–13.

144 Ehrman, New Testament, 205; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 291–93.

145 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 282, 285, 288–89. Another example is found in Joachim Jeremias, Central Message, 16, 30 (see chap. 2, n. 39).

146 John S. Kloppenborg, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15: 3b–5 in Light of Some Recent Literature,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978): 351–67; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10–11; William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1989), especially 7–15.

147 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, esp. 19–24. Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, esp. chap. 6, treats this topic as well. Page 171 lists a number of texts where Aramaic traces are seen behind these Acts sermonettes.

148 This last conclusion regarding the guards at the tomb is, contrary to what some might think, not necessarily due to conservative presuppositions being pushed through. True, it has an apologetic flavor, but strictly concerning all the grounds on which a positive or negative verdict might be cast, it must be confessed that, in my doubting days, this narrative seemed to possess few redeeming historical features of an evidential quality, and the majority view seemed assured. So the outcome turned out, frankly, to be quite surprising in spite of my evaluation at the outset.

149 See the chapters on James and Paul in this volume, which provide additional details.

150 Notice also, then, that the total number of “pointers” here is somewhat approximate in the sense that they contain factors that sometimes overlap from different angles, or others that are worthwhile sources that are still not to be construed as separate arguments in themselves. That is why they were identified above as “major and minor” factors. The exact distinctions and evaluations will differ from researcher to researcher as well, even among those who agree generally with this lineup. Hence the overall count of “pointers” concerning this minimal fact is somewhat open.

151 Acts 9:3–8; 22:6–11; 26:12–20.

152 Other key creeds include Luke 24:34; Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9 and so forth.

153 Including Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:29–31; 17:31.

154 Some strong comments on the appearance to the twelve apostles are mentioned by Allison in Resurrection of Jesus, 61, 62.

155 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, argues that receiving the creed in Jerusalem from Peter and James is now the consensus position among scholars (esp. 266–67, see also 271, 273, 307–8); Michael R. Licona, “What Are the Primary Sources for Jesus’s Resurrection?,” The City: A Publication of Houston Baptist University 9 (2016): 30.

156 Helmut Koester dates Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem to AD 48 in his Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Barnett dates the events there at 47; see Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 133. Ehrman dates 1 Thessalonians, as the earliest New Testament writing, to approximately 49 in Ehrman, New Testament (276), while Johnson apparently prefers a similar date of approximately 50 in Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 249.

157 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–48.

158 Counting Jesus’s (Mark 14:28) and the young man’s or angel’s predictions of a Galilee appearance of Jesus as a fully expected event according to Mark (16:7). Factoring in duplicates above avoids the many opinions on how many of these occurrences were overlapping.

159 Simply taking the reports as they are written, candidates for the reported number of group appearances would include Jesus appearing to the women after they left the tomb, and to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, to the group of disciples minus Thomas on Easter Sunday evening, a week later to all eleven disciples, and on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Other group appearances would include Jesus’s meeting with his disciples on a mountain in Galilee, plus if they are separate, appearing to 500 witnesses, and to “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7b). If the report of the ascension is another visit, that would make nine seemingly distinct appearances. For those who count Paul’s experience as a group appearance in keeping with the accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26, that would be ten occasions. But not only could there be some overlap here, but how can it be known whether or not there were other group visits that were not recorded during this time period (cf. the comment in Acts 1:3)? Which of these occasions should be considered as the best evidenced is another question too.

160 See the many details in the discussion above, especially the multiple attestation for the group appearances to Jesus’s disciples according to both Crossan alone as well as the somewhat different listing from the Jesus Seminar.

161 Beyond the group appearances, multiple attestation of Jesus’s appearances to several individuals by themselves (such as Peter, Mary Magdalene, James, and Paul) are also acknowledged by more skeptical researchers. The details are also documented in the discussion above.

162 Allison, “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” in Handbook for the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1:3–30, quotation on 25. Further comments on this idea are found in Allison, Constructing Jesus, 17–21 (see excursus 1, n. 21); Tom Holmén, “Authenticity Criteria,” in The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, ed. Craig Evans (New York: Routledge, 2008), 43–54.

163 Which even the Jesus Seminar grants may be the case; see Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 398.

164 Note that the Didache and the Gospels of Peter and Thomas are listed here because some scholars have made worthwhile comments on their behalf. However, these three sources will be cited quite infrequently, without being utilized to establish key points in favor of the case for the historicity of the disciples’ experiences.

165 Of the few canonical works that do not specify the topic of Jesus’s resurrection, none is longer than five chapters in length, and four are only one chapter long while exhibiting fairly narrow scopes. Moreover, at least the traditional authors of most of these small writings clearly address the resurrection elsewhere.

166 We enumerated above at least twenty independent sources, including Paul’s Epistles (counted as a single source), all of the combined early creedal traditions plus Acts sermon summaries (also counted as only a single source), Q (seemingly implied), Mark (where the resurrection is both predicted and stated but not narrated), L, M, John, Hebrews, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, Revelation, Josephus (probably), pseudo-Mark, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Didache (strongly implied), plus the Gospels of Thomas (strongly implied) and Peter (strong but too late). To comment on these texts, if only the seven undisputed Pauline Epistles are counted as a single Pauline source, as most contemporary critical scholars count them, some or all of the following texts also could be included in the list here as writings by other authors: Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Timothy, with sometimes strong implications in still other early texts elsewhere, for a possible independent source count approaching two dozen or a few more, depending on authorship as well as what aspects are being enumerated.

167 Note that from this point onward in this chapter, we are counting the additional criteria only, without the locations of the passages to which these criteria apply, since the latter have already been tallied in our earlier discussions. Nonetheless, the total count of reasons is still being numbered consecutively. For the sake of accuracy, the two categories will be separated below.

168 Ehrman, New Testament, 205; Did Jesus Exist?, 291–93. These are also cases of embarrassment.

169 For example, Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 686.

170 Wright is especially detailed on the benefits of the combination of the empty tomb plus the appearances of the risen Jesus, numbering each argument and emphasizing multiple steps (including important subpoints), which for Wright indicates an exceptionally powerful overall case. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 686–718, including his strong conclusions especially on 707 and 710.

171 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, particularly 461–64, cf. 406–15, 629–32; Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 69–76.

172 This figure of at least thirty total indicators (arguments and subarguments) that favor the historicity of the disciples’ experiences were taken chiefly from the texts or textual combinations, along with other historical considerations drawn from the historical criteria. This tally did not count most of the New Testament references listed above.

173 As before, the total number of considerations here is somewhat fluid based on the particular researchers.

174 Note that this was also the same period of time after the crucifixion that Ehrman utilized for his source counts; see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 56, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41. If a few of these documents are thought to extend beyond AD 130, this would obviously either lengthen the time element or shorten the number of sources.

175 In my treatment of noncanonical sources for the historical Jesus, the territory covered dates largely from Jesus’s crucifixion forward to about a century and a half or so. See Habermas, Historical Jesus, chap. 9. Further, relevant and helpful archaeological information could be added to the mix; see Historical Jesus, chap. 8. For a helpful overview of the latter subject, see Randall Price with Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017).

176 In this count, the basic creedal traditions in spite of their own differences were differentiated from the Acts sermon summaries, which are somewhat more distinctive. These two groupings are often acknowledged to be of a slightly diverse nature anyway and very likely came in whole or in part from more than one apostolic source, as the leading commentators have noted.

177 Other considerations could involve examples from both the textual data and the historical criteria being cited in more than one way, such as with the disciples abandoning Jesus in the garden and elsewhere being both an example of embarrassment as well as one of Ehrman’s examples of discontinuity, though these do not concern the resurrection experiences. From the latter category, Paul’s conversion is an example of enemy attestation, plus the story being told is quite embarrassing in itself. But scholars regularly count both categories in such examples, since by pointing to the same historical fact, these different criteria help to corroborate it even further. The process can work the other way around too, with multiple factual truths emerging from the same criterion, perhaps like various branches emerging from the same tree. These sorts of doubling occur in critical studies as well, as noted for example by major commentator John Meier, who exhibits these situations often. For instance, Meier delineates four examples of discontinuity from a single passage! See Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:433–37.

178 In a written dialogue with Jesus mythicist Robert Price, Luke Timothy Johnson asserted that the criterion of multiple attestation is “of even greater significance” than the criterion of dissimilarity (sometimes termed discontinuity), which was often the favorite textual tool that emerged from the Bultmannian tradition, especially as expanded during the later Second Quest for the historical Jesus, as in Käsemann’s famous essay, “Problem of the Historical Jesus,” 302–13, and more recently in the findings of the Jesus Seminar. Johnson then added that he liked to use “convergence among sources” as well. See Johnson, “Response to Robert M. Price,” 90 (see chap. 6, n. 39).

179 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210. For various other aspects of this case, see 7–8, 11–12, 17–18, 48–49.

180 Allison, “Explaining the Resurrection,” 125 (see chap. 4, n. 10).

181 David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, trans. George Eliot, ed. Peter C. Hodgson (Mifflintown, PA: Sigler, 1972), 727–28.

182 Strauss, 739.

183 F. C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings; A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity, trans. “A.P.” (London: Williams and Norgate, 1873–1875; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 67.

184 Schleiermacher, The Life of Jesus, trans. S. Maclean Gilmore, ed. Jack C. Verheyden (Mifflintown, PA: Sigler, 1975), 433, 435, 460–65; further, Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, two volumes, trans. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 2:420.

185 Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” 42 (see chap. 5, n. 29). The disciples’ experiences are granted as historical, in spite of the nonhistorical, mythological nature of the resurrection, as reported on 38.

186 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 229–32, quotations on 230 and 231.

187 Crossan and Wright, Resurrection of Jesus, 33. Crossan follows up this explanation on the next page: “The something that I’m insisting on, at that point, is that they did have visions. I am, I really am. Otherwise I would not be able to understand it. I don’t know how you make the jump without that” (34). This is asserted again on page 177, where Crossan calls the apparitions “historical events.” Crossan also denies some naturalistic theses too (33, 38).

188 This is stated several times by Sanders in his work Human Figure of Jesus, 11, 13, 278, 280 (see excursus 1, n. 63), though he indicates that he does not know the form in which Jesus actually appeared. The quotation is on page 11. Sanders goes further than does Crossan, too, by rejecting several more naturalistic interpretations of these appearances (278–80).

189 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 346, also 269, 343; somewhat similarly, also Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, see especially 3. Further, see 61–62, 86, 146, 209–10.

190 Besides the major works of scholars such as Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, and Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, cf. also Justin W. Bass’s compilation of the views of additional critical scholars on these subjects in Bedrock of Christianity, esp. chaps. 5–6 (see chap. 4, n. 85).

191 This will involve not only defending the nature of the actual, historical appearances of the risen Jesus, but also taking many hundreds of pages to engage with and treat the minutiae of many naturalistic and other alternative possibilities that attempt to explain away these appearances.

11

Minimal Fact 3: The Earliest Proclamation of the Gospel

Our previous chapter treated the historicity of the disciples’ experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Inextricably caught up in that reported research were numerous remarks drawn from both the data as well as the resulting scholarly views that pointed directly to the exceptionally early date at which these experiences happened and were then reported. Granted, the actual occurrences followed by the approximate time of the earliest dissemination are difficult to separate precisely in the New Testament. According to Acts, it was only a matter of a few dozen days.

The research presented and discussed in this chapter builds upon the previous one and extends it to the remarkably early timing of the disciples’ experiences and teachings. The point here is that these experiences still could have been quite authentic, though unexpressed for decades, but this was decidedly not the case. Hence it is this factor of early reporting that enhances the disciples’ testimony so that both event and time coalesce.

This additional early aspect is chiefly expressed here by an overview of nine successive layers of data that involve the earliest expression and attestation of the gospel message, beginning after the crucifixion and moving forward in sources roughly up to the close of the canonical period at the end of the first century. Incredibly, at least the first five layers can each produce strong data that actually date no later than just six years after the crucifixion, with some of it having begun immediately! This is approximately the time frame used in our previous survey as well.

This string of the initial nine layers is so numbered because each one roughly follows and builds on the previous point. This overall listing is demarcated in that it contains the earliest major arguments in the process of preaching and teaching the gospel. In addition to these initial arguments, an ongoing count of other factors will also include several more subsidiary considerations that support the overall thesis, though they are not numbered. A summarized checklist of these is given at the close of the chapter.

Nine Early Layers of Testimony

Layer 1: The Earliest Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Among the initial cohort of experiences discussed in the previous chapter, there were many key events. The singling out of Mary Magdalene and the women, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, the Twelve, and the 500 persons at once is memorable, each for different reasons. This constitutes the first tier in that these occurrences in AD 30 preceded the gospel proclamation of the early witnesses immediately afterwards.1

Layer 2: The Earliest Gospel Message (the Homologia)

Many New Testament texts report that the good news of the Gospel (euaggelion) began to be preached very soon after the culmination of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. The Gospels end with Jesus instructing his disciples as his witnesses to go and preach this message to everyone.2

Foreshadowing some items to come in this chapter, Acts then describes the beginning of this process. Matthias was chosen to take Judas’s place, where the newest apostle was required to have been a witness to Jesus’s ministry and particularly to his resurrection (1:21). The initial sermon was given just a few days later, on Pentecost, and thousands of new converts were reported (2:22–41). The next chapter opens with a healing miracle followed by a second sermon by Peter, and a large number of additional coverts joined the young movement (3:12–26; 4:4). In subsequent chapters, the gospel message was imparted again and again by the apostles, with quite similar and overlapping themes, both before the Jewish leaders (4:8–22; 5:27–32) as well as being repeated to groups of listeners (10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:22–31), with the last two examples being Pauline. In each of these many settings, the gospel proclamations were quite clear.

Throughout these developments, there were many indications that the church was indeed growing consistently. A community of believers was organizing from the beginning (Acts 2:42–47), practical problems were being solved (6:1–6), and a large number of Jewish priests were reportedly converted (6:6b). But controversies with the religious authorities reached the boiling point and Stephen was martyred (7:54–60), initiating Saul of Tarsus’ persecution (8:1–3).

This same Saul, now known as Paul, was himself converted two to three years later (in AD 32–33), and three years after that, he visited the apostles Peter and James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem for fifteen days of dialogue and discussion, since the latter two were the leaders of the now-thriving Christian community in that city (Gal 1:18–21). Years later and most likely still before the writing of the initial New Testament epistle, Paul visited Jerusalem again, this time with the other two plus the apostle John being present (Gal 2:1–10; cf. Acts 15:1–35).3 These three apostles approved Paul’s gospel message to the Gentiles (Gal 2:6b, 9–10), while Paul repeated that all the other apostles were teaching the same message that he was regarding Jesus’s resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:11).

A few of the relevant details here and elsewhere in the accounts of the birth and development of the church are multiply attested.4 Most crucially, the theme of the earliest messages was unified, especially in declaring the gospel teaching of the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus.5 Among these data, the single most evidential and essential pointer on these occasions resulted from the two meetings and discussions between Paul, Peter, James, and John—the four most influential voices in the proclamation of early Christianity. Paul’s visits are also the earliest of these accounts. Besides incorporating Paul’s own eyewitness testimony, they also included the near-eyewitness word of the other three leaders.6

Together we have very insightful reports concerning the content of the earliest gospel proclamation as to how the church began. Critical scholars sometimes understand these factual scenarios as indicating helpful windows into the early historical details. For example, after commenting on the data regarding the earliness of Paul’s trips to Jerusalem to speak to other apostolic leaders of the thriving church there, Dodd remarks that Paul “received the fundamentals of the Gospel.” Then Dodd insightfully comments, “Thus Paul’s preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source.” Dodd continues that, in spite of Paul’s personal distinctions and expressions, “anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.” Afterward, Dodd outlines the kerygma from Paul’s Epistles.7 We have seen that many other researchers have also attested that the apostles preached and taught the same core gospel content with a wide variety of listeners.

In fact, perhaps a majority of critical scholars have also generally agreed for decades and even longer that the early witnesses taught that they had received a commission from the risen Jesus to spread this gospel message everywhere. The reasoning is often that something similar to the multiply attested texts in Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–49; Acts 1:8; and pseudo-Mark 16:15–16 were communicated to the disciples, and this readily explains the beginning of their quick activity in disseminating this task. Jesus’s message was also found in his pre-crucifixion comments as well.8

Buttressing this point further is that a number of relevant Greek terms used in the New Testament and elsewhere have been unpacked in the contemporary research in recent decades, illuminating the details of the gospel content, its proclamation in preaching and teaching, additional areas of early theology which followed directly, and so forth.9 Throughout, we have also introduced the subject of the early Christian creeds, traditions, confessions, hymns, and sermon summaries and will do so in much detail in the next chapter. As with many of these snippets of invaluable information, there is both overlap as well as key distinctions made between these forms. We will not attempt here to parcel out the technical discussion of the various emphases, nuances, and meanings; a few key distinctions will have to suffice for our present purposes. Relevant classical and Hellenistic uses of these or similar New Testament terms may provide additional insight.

As a major example, Vernon Neufeld among others emphasizes the subject of the homologia, making the distinction that in all of its various meanings and usages, the major concept “is that of agreement, a connotation which appears to pervade all instances of their use during the classical period.” This central use and meaning goes back to historians like Herodotus and Thucydides plus other authors such as Sophocles. It and related terms chiefly indicate agreeing, granting, or conceding a point. Classical Greek also follows suit here, generally meaning to acknowledge, agree, or admit. Wide usage in Koine Greek followed this same pattern of meaning.10

When homologia is used in the New Testament as a noun, it seems always to concern the earliest confessions themselves or believers confessing their faith. As a verb, as in Rom 10:10, it is this act that brings salvation. The verb can refer to the term homologia, and when doing so, it sometimes speaks about the person or identification of Jesus with lofty titles such as Christ, Lord, or Son of God.11 It “represents the basic core of the Christian faith.”12

Neufeld concludes that a linguistic analysis of the New Testament usage of the relevant language indicated that homologia “represented the agreement or consensus in which the Christian community was united, that core of essential conviction and belief to which Christians subscribed and openly testified. The homologia was the admission and acknowledgment of the individual’s loyalty to Jesus Christ, . . . the confession of Jesus with specific reference to his person and work, and was therefore Christological in character.”13 As such, for Neufeld along with many other scholars who have studied this material, not only was Christology at the very center of this earliest belief and proclamation, but it was a very high Christology at that. It emphasized Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, and especially his lordship and exaltation, even extending to the worship of Jesus and his sharing God’s throne.14 As Neufeld notes, “The subject of all the early confessions is Jesus.”15 Without doubt, this very early material centered on the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.16

These ideas have continued to be developed further by major theologians. For instance, Oxford University professor G. B. Caird along with L. D. Hurst proclaimed, “This will in turn lead us to an astonishing conclusion: the highest Christology of the New Testament is also its earliest.”17 As influential as any New Testament scholar of his generation, Martin Hengel taught that “with regard to the development of all the early Church’s Christology . . . more happened in the first twenty years than in the entire later, centuries-long development of dogma.”18 Astonishingly for some, Bart Ehrman even agreed with Hengel’s comment, as noted above, though he interprets it adoptionistically.19 It must be remembered that this early Christology during the initial twenty years, then, likely predated the appearance of the initial New Testament writing, 1 Thessalonians. But the core concepts were present from the beginning of this time frame.20

Some of these earlier ideas were precursors to several other ongoing developments. A major example is Richard Bauckham’s recent comment that “the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology. I call it a Christology of divine identity.”21 By this, Bauckham means that from the beginning, “it is already a fully-divine Christology, maintaining that Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the unique and eternal identity of God.”22 Larry Hurtado comments similarly: “The devotion to Jesus that Paul affirms in his letters was manifest already in the very earliest circles of Jewish Christians, including those of the very first years (perhaps months) in Roman Judea.”23 For Bauckham, Hurtado, plus many other scholars as well, this central gospel message definitely revolved around these key concepts and events.24

Further, it was also pointed out in the previous chapter that even a number of atheists and other highly skeptical scholars have joined their peers recognizing that Jesus’s resurrection appearances were taught and preached from a very brief time after the experiences themselves. These announcements may even have occurred immediately, from just days to a few months later. This exceptionally early resurrection message forms the apex and capstone of these messages.25

The major idea from the very earliest of our first five layers in this chapter, then, is the notion that the gospel message served as the center of the early Christian proclamation. This was the “good news” (euaggelion) that was the agreed upon homologia at the very heart of key New Testament preaching and teaching of the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus. This is observed in passages like the ones that have been discussed in the past two chapters, texts that include Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9; Phil 2:6–11; and especially 1 Cor 15:3–7.26

But there is another absolutely crucial clarification that must also be made here. As vital as these early creedal traditions are that we are about to discuss next, this previous level needed to be inserted first. It is not the creeds themselves that are necessarily the most crucial information here, or precisely when and where they were received. Rather, it is the message behind these creedal traditions that is of central concern and interest. It is true that this key teaching and the form in which it was expressed “creedally” may often have arrived on the scene together at almost the same time. But it should never be lost from sight that the content of the agreed upon message (the homologia) supersedes the vehicle in which that communication is presented (the form of the creeds). This is the contrast between what was communicated and how it was communicated.

In other words, the church was “founded” upon the central truth of the agreed upon gospel proclamation, the homologia, while the creedal traditions were the best way to communicate those still-oral teachings. This was especially needed for the high percentages of illiterate listeners, as New Testament scholars largely conclude was the case. As such, the homologia was a natural fit. Of course, there can be a message without it having been converted to an easily memorized form. But creedal traditions, hymns, and prayers allow short passages of easily recalled content to be internalized even by people who theoretically could not sign their names. But they could definitely learn some brief kernels of truth, somewhat like how preschool children today can sing their favorite songs or repeat the lines of poetry. These could be either school-like examples (as in “Jack and Jill went up the hill” or “Row, row, row your boat”), or when reciting religious teachings (“Amazing grace how sweet the sound”), or perhaps learning a “memory verse” before someone was ever able to read or write.

Layer 3: Pre-Pauline 1 Creeds

In our third early layer of gospel testimony, contemporary scholars speak regularly about the oral creedal traditions, confessions, or hymns that most likely either predate Paul’s conversion or extend to the time of his conversion or his initial trip to Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36. In other words, these scholars hold that some of the earliest creedal traditions date from before Paul’s conversion up until that event, to his visit with Peter and James, which fit into the brief window of some five years.

Back to Bultmann and even before his work,27 these issues were beginning to be discussed in more detail. Most often, from this time forward to the present, the phrase “pre-Pauline” has usually been used without more specification, giving rise to the question of the sense in which this material predates the apostle. For our purposes here, “pre-Pauline 1 creeds” refers to creedal traditions that were potentially already in existence within the time frame from before Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus about AD 32 or 33 until his first trip to Jerusalem. The “pre-Pauline 2 creeds” are treated below, the term referring to the oral creedal traditions that probably originated a bit later but obviously arose before the Epistles in which they appear in writing.

Tracking back to this earlier time period before his conversion, Paul must have known a fair amount about the gospel homologia that the early believers were repeatedly preaching and teaching. Luke states in Acts 8:1 (cf. 7:58) that Paul approved the stoning of Stephen. On what grounds, then? Paul knew well enough that he disagreed quite strongly with the Christian’s theological beliefs, but of course that presupposes that he knew what they believed! And most likely, this disagreement went to the very center of their doctrines for it to break out into the strong persecution of the earliest believers around Jerusalem. It would seem nearly impossible for Paul to have been in that environment, especially with his high aptitude for theological orthodoxy, without having heard and known many of these key components!

For example, if Bauckham and other scholars are right about the church’s early views of Jesus Christ being the highest Christology of all, including Jesus co-occupying God’s throne, receiving worship, and possessing God’s nature,28 the conclusion of heresy would probably have seemed simple and straightforward to Saul (later Paul). Yet, this message would have been taught quite boldly in the everyday preaching of the earliest believers in and around Jerusalem. It seems that the verdict would clearly have been that the Christians simply must have been heretics, were guilty as charged, and deserved death for blaspheming the God of Israel.

Had Paul been privy to Stephen’s teaching before the stoning? If the Acts report accurately portrays Stephen’s preaching, it would have been close to impossible for Paul not to actually have heard Stephen refer to Jesus by the lofty title of the Son of Man as well as describe Jesus as standing at God’s right hand (Acts 7:55–56)! Recent scholars agree that few comments would have been more egregious. Then immediately afterwards, just before dying, Stephen prayed to Jesus as “Lord” (7:59). Thus it does seem quite clear both from this scene as well as from other occasions that Paul would have been quite aware of the Christian “heresy” from just listening to what we may call the precreedal Gospel homologia.

We must factor in that by the time Paul wrote Galatians, he had already experienced what he thought was Jesus’s resurrection appearance and had thought about these theological teachings for some three years (Gal 1:15–18a), plus he had some twenty or more years of reflection from that time before composing this letter. This time factor must be fairly considered and factored into his theology.

Still, Paul begins his epistles with a high Christology. In what was probably his very earliest epistle of 1 Thessalonians, written about twenty years after the crucifixion, Paul refers to Jesus as Christ (1:1), the Son of God (1:9–10), as well as Lord (1:1). In the context of describing his persecution of Christians in both Galatians 1 and in Philippians 3, he still refers often to Jesus as Christ (such as Gal 1:1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22; Phil 2:11; 3:3, 7, 8). But Paul also calls Jesus “Lord” (Gal 1:3; Phil 1:8, 9, 10; 2:11) and “Son” (Gal 1:16). The heavily Christological creed or hymn in Phil 2:6–11 prescribes the worship and reign of Jesus, besides stating that he shared the nature of God. So even after his years of reflection, it is still possible here that, as held by Bauckham, Paul’s earliest Christology after his conversion at least could well have remained his highest Christology!

Therefore, it may be helpful to recall how Dodd commented above that, far from being late or aberrant, the Christology in Paul’s Epistles was part of the mainstream of Christian tradition that was derived from very near to the original apostolic source. These were far from being different messages. After all, “we must assume some knowledge of the tenets of Christianity in Paul even before his conversion.”29

Even atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman agrees here, at least in part: “The idea that Christians were telling stories of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection before Luke, before Mark, and before Paul is held by virtually all scholars of the New Testament, and for compelling reasons.” Continuing, Ehrman adds, “Paul certainly knew other stories about Jesus soon after he converted in 32–33 CE, as he provides information about Jesus’s birth, teachings, family, ministry, Last Supper, and crucifixion in his later writings, long before Mark wrote.” Many other “remnants of some of the early traditions of Jesus were circulating orally” before the Gospels.30 Altogether, we have “an enormous number of oral traditions” that date all the way back to the 30s from both the Acts sermon summaries as well as the canonical Epistles (chiefly from Paul), with some dating only one to two years after the crucifixion!31

Here we may think through these ideas and “connect the dots.” The death, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus, plus a high Christology, were all present beginning in the very same statements that Ehrman along with many other scholars date to just one or two years after the crucifixion. Since this gospel message was already clearly being taught well before Paul’s conversion, as with the case of Stephen just mentioned, Paul would have to have known the nature of this early message.

Thus the initial portion of this question seems to have a solid answer. Paul in all likelihood knew the early Christian homologia and had heard this message expressed often, even as it was chiefly voiced by those he was persecuting. But the next question is more difficult to determine: could Paul also have heard and known any of the very earliest creedal traditions—that is, the formalized homologia—before Jesus’s appearance to him? In other words, could any of these earliest confessions have actually predated his conversion so that even before his trip to Damascus, some of these creeds may already have been in existence and were encountered by him as well? In the same way it could be asked, how soon after the crucifixion did Peter, John, or James the brother of Jesus hear some of the theological applications of this message? Perhaps these apostles even authored a few of these traditions, as suggested by some critical scholars.32

While it would seem to be virtually impossible to pin down the earliest creedal confessions to specific dates, some influential researchers have provided their views that at least a few of them clearly preceded Paul’s conversion. James D. G. Dunn emphasizes that Paul’s own personal testimony witnesses to “the tradition already established at the time of his conversion” just very shortly after the original events that were described there. The center of this message revolved around the appearances of the risen Jesus and Jesus’s commission to proclaim this message, as the apostle explains in 1 Cor 15:3–7.33 Of this early text, Dunn asserts: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”34 If Dunn is correct here, then since Jesus’s crucifixion occurred in the spring, this could possibly indicate that the creed itself originated precisely in the exact same year!

Other prominent examples include the Jesus Seminar members, who conclude concerning the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7: “Most Fellows think the components of the list reported there were formed before Paul’s conversion, which is usually dated around 33 C.E.”35 Kloppenborg thinks that Luke 24:34 may even be older than the creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15!36 Joachim Jeremias determined that the tradition in 1 Cor 11:23–25 “goes back unbroken to Jesus himself.”37

Such a dating for the list of early resurrection appearances would indeed indicate that this creed existed at a time before Paul’s conversion or at least his trip to Damascus that resulted in his conversion. In this combination of previous information plus Paul’s personal experience, Dunn thinks that here we have “the closest thing to firsthand personal testimony to a resurrection appearance.”38

Other scholars speak similarly regarding the very early date of the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7. In the context of discussing 1 Cor 15:1–11, Hurtado dates the earliest “common faith and devotional pattern” to Roman Judea perhaps as early as months after the events.39 German theologian Walter Kasper also dates the formulaic tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–5 to as early as AD 30.40 John Drane actually thinks that several sermon summaries in Acts are the earliest material of all, since that text “almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event.”41 In spite of his very skeptical views, Ehrman lists many New Testament texts that he thinks date to only one or two years after Jesus’s crucifixion, both from the Acts sermon summaries as well as from the Epistles.42 Ehrman also notes that much central teaching about Jesus was in circulation before Paul’s conversion, including information that Jesus was thought of as the Messiah, Son of God, and Lord, plus reports regarding Jesus’s death and resurrection.43 Of course, we noted some of these items from the preaching of Stephen alone, which Paul probably heard, without much doubt.

More scholarly views that favor exceptionally early dates for this material also could be listed here, but it is enough to report that the consensus view among New Testament scholars at present, across a wide spectrum of theological and other views, is that Paul probably received the 1 Cor 15:3–7 creed(s) (or at least the underlying facts themselves) from Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, when he visited Jerusalem in the mid-30s.44 This “almost universal scholarly consensus”45 of such a miniscule amount of time is certainly close enough to the events themselves to justify referring to the Christian gospel preaching and teaching as getting its initial start about as early as anything could possibly occur, given the event of the crucifixion itself as the point of departure. Further examples of scholars who date the reception of these traditions to the time of Paul’s conversion or initial trip to Jerusalem are numerous.46

This is especially the case in the ancient world, where far too few historical occurrences are reported from very close to the events themselves. In fact, as Australian historian Paul Barnett asserts regarding this miniscule distance in early Christianity, “In terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.”47 We might add that this would especially be true if considering other founders of major world religions.48

After discussing Jesus’s death, atheist philosopher Michael Martin expressed a popular sentiment among skeptics when he asserts, “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”49 Prominent Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover agrees that Paul’s account is the best starting point, since, “Paul’s testimony is the earliest and the most historically reliable evidence about the resurrection of Jesus that we have.”50

Thus, a majority to a consensus of critical scholars hold that a number of the very earliest creedal traditions preserved especially in the New Testament Epistles date within the window from before Paul’s conversion until his first visit to Jerusalem. The creedal candidates that may fit inside this window quite possibly include the very earliest confessions, such as Luke 24:34; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; 1 Cor 11:23–26; 12:3; 15:3–7; Rom 1:3–4; 4:24–25; 8:34; 10:9; or Phil 2:6–11, among perhaps others. They may have been among those that existed at this early date, as many critical scholars likewise agree.51 Besides these texts from Paul’s Epistles, there are also a large number of potential pre-Pauline 1 and 2 texts from the Acts sermon summaries, some of which Ehrman and others date to just one to two years after the crucifixion, as we have already seen above.52

We are close enough to know that there appear to be a number of creedal examples from this earliest period. But this is about as far as we can go for this third historical marker since more specific dates for particular traditions are almost impossible to decipher. But it is very possible that the majority of those texts in this category that we have singled out from the Acts sermon summaries and the Epistles actually did come during this period.

Thus, even though neither a strict origination date itself nor the exact time when Paul or any other apostles or early Christian leaders may have encountered some of these creeds can be ascertained too firmly, we are close on the general data. It is enough at this juncture to declare that the original gospel message of the homologia—which included the heart of the gospel message concerning the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—was definitely a pre-Pauline theme that occupied the initial layer of testimony. The data indicate that it was preached immediately after the resurrection. Without it, there would have been very little foundation to have gained so many converts based on this message. Hence, the data behind the creeds were well-known immediately and affirmed by the apostles (1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10). This is absolutely crucial; stage 1 is absolutely firm.

The great majority of the early confessions were Christological and soteriological in nature.53 For example, of the ten texts above from Paul’s Epistles, seven mention Jesus’s resurrection and an eighth mentions his resulting exaltation, showing the centrality of this message. Further, of the nine sermon summaries in Acts, all nine specify Jesus’s resurrection, often with many details among them. Beyond this, it more difficult to date the individual traditions exactly, though as just mentioned we have many candidates and doubtless a number were from before Paul’s conversion.

Layer 4: Paul’s Conversion

The previous layer of pre-Pauline 1 creeds was defined as extending from the earliest apostolic preaching of the gospel up until Paul’s conversion on the way to Damascus. The appearance to Paul is usually dated at either two or three years after Jesus’s crucifixion.54 Scholars estimate these events to have occurred quite closely to one another. Paul had been in Damascus since about AD 33, placing his conversion around 32 or 33.55 This solid date for this eyewitness report is a fourth layer that clearly marks the exceptional earliness of the apostolic gospel preaching.

Slightly later than the earliest homologia and its embodiment in the very earliest of the creedal statements, Paul reported that he had met the risen Jesus on his trip to Damascus to persecute Christians. He provides his own testimony regarding this resurrection appearance (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8) and the account is also narrated in Acts (9:1–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18). Elsewhere Paul relates that the appearance to him occurred three years before meeting with the two other apostles, Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:13–21). Paul’s testimony is regarded by almost all scholars not only as very early but also as being that of an eyewitness.

Layer 5: Paul’s Initial Trip to Jerusalem

As already remarked, the consensus New Testament position discussed earlier indicates the predominant scholarly view that Paul probably received the early creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from the Jerusalem disciples Peter and James when he visited them just three years after his conversion in AD 35 or 36 (Gal 1:18–20). This is the fifth layer of data, six years after the crucifixion at the latest. Paul uses the term historēsai to elucidate his process of “research”—inquiring and investigating information from before his conversion. Crucially, even if Paul did not receive the actual creed there, there is very little question from researchers that, at the very least, he minimally received and understood the original Gospel homologia at this time. This connection by Paul with the apostles Peter and James placed a solid eyewitness foundation under and behind the exceptional earliness of the creedal traditions listed in the very first layer above, clearly indicating that these early testimonies were not simply hearsay or ungrounded storytelling.56

In summary, these first five layers above combine to form a progressive set of arguments for the early date of the most crucial Christian message. The first layer concerned the earliest disciples’ resurrection experiences. The second tier involved the homologia or the agreed upon heart of the faith—the gospel message itself especially pertaining to Jesus’s deity, death, and resurrection, which began immediately following the first resurrection experiences. The third layer consisted of the earliest creedal traditions that originated directly after the earliest preaching, most likely being dated before Paul’s conversion (the pre-Pauline 1 creeds). The fourth development was Paul’s conversion, occasioned by his reported experience with the risen Jesus dated two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion. The fifth stage was Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem three years later in AD 35 or 36 to discuss the gospel message with Peter and James. Each of these first five layers took place within a maximum of just six years after the cross, even according to critical scholars! As we have noted in this study, nothing of this precise historical detail exists in other early religious studies.

Layer 6: Paul’s Later Trip to Jerusalem

The sixth stage concerns Paul’s return to Jerusalem fourteen years later (which was still very early and would quite probably predate the earliest of the New Testament Epistles)57 to discuss the nature of the gospel message with the same two apostles that he questioned in his earlier trip recounted in Gal 1:18–20 (Peter and James) plus the apostle John, who was also present this time (Gal 2:1–10, particularly 2:2). This meeting involved the four most influential apostles in the earliest church. It was a successful meeting, and the trip resulted in the other apostles’ agreement with Paul regarding the gospel message, for they did not attempt to adjust Paul’s message at all (Gal 2:6b). The meeting ended with the Jerusalem apostles (“the pillars”) offering to Paul and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship” (2:9), which, of course, would only be extended to brothers in the faith and never to heretics!

These two meetings convinced Paul that he and the other three apostles were preaching and teaching the same central gospel message (the homologia) regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Paul thought that this was so clearly the case that he basically invited his readers to check out either his testimony or that of the other disciples because they would hear the same responses (1 Cor 15:11).58

These two meetings in Jerusalem involved the earliest and most influential eyewitnesses in the early church, thereby reinforcing and grounding the original creedal traditions along with the corresponding apostolic testimony. These discussions between Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John, along with 1 Cor 15:11, are probably the single chief argument as to why the exceptionally early Christian testimony contained in the homologia of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus was not just some tall tale, exaggeration, or something like “phone tag.” Rather, this eyewitness confirmation of the tradition and testimony best indicated that the message was true.59

Layer 7: Pre-Pauline 2 Creeds

The pre-Pauline 1 creeds were defined earlier as those more formal affirmations of faith that a number of critical scholars evaluate from the data as probably having already been in existence and circulating orally before Paul’s conversion. In other words, when Paul was on his way to Damascus, these pre-Pauline 1 traditions would already have existed in oral form and been made known in preaching and teaching. In such a case, the apostle probably heard a number of these confessions recited. As a Jewish scholar, they may have infuriated Paul.60

This seventh layer of early reports will be referred to here as the pre-Pauline 2 oral creedal traditions, which originated and were most likely spread in preaching and teaching somewhere between Paul’s conversion and their being written down in one of the canonical epistles, most likely in Paul’s own works. Most of the few dozen New Testament confessions likely could have been of this later variety. If we count only Paul’s seven critically accepted epistles, this would date the pre-Pauline 2 traditions from approximately 32–33 (Paul’s conversion) to between 50 to 60 (Paul’s recognized Epistles).61 This means that the latest these particular creeds observed in Paul’s recognized Epistles could have appeared no later than twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion.62 As we have seen, many of them almost surely originated much earlier.

Actually, many of these traditions probably dated from the late 30s to the mid-40s. Various notions favor this option. At least several of the earlier traditions (dubbed the pre-Pauline 1 creeds) provided reasons that they existed even before Paul’s conversion, indicating the precedent that an earlier dating is entirely possible. Further, as noted by several researchers, there are particular affinities between some of the creeds quoted in the Epistles and the Acts sermon summaries,63 which as we have seen are quite often thought to be among the very earliest of the traditions due to comparative wording or the high level of Christology that appeared immediately in books such as 1 Thessalonians dated from about AD 50. Moreover, Christian preaching and teaching were plentiful in these early years, and many converts were coming to faith where some of these creeds would have been very convenient due to their concise nature, summarized theology, and content for people who were illiterate. They were handy tools for teaching doctrine to new converts.

Candidates for the pre-Pauline 2 creeds would of course start with any of those texts mentioned from the previous list of ten possibly pre-Pauline 1 creeds, plus the nine Acts sermon summaries listed above, in the case that some of those actually turned out to be a little later than Paul’s conversion. Potential examples for this category could include Rom 5:8; 8:11; 14:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 15:15; and Gal 1:4. From outside the group of the seven so-called authentic Pauline Epistles, further candidates might include Eph 1:20; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8, 11; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 1:21; 3:18; and possibly even Luke 24:34.64

It is noteworthy that of the additional fifteen creedal texts possibly in this category, ten of them mention the resurrection while another three imply it strongly. This argues, once again, for the centrality of the gospel homologia and the role it played in the earliest proclamation. This gospel message was the very heart of what the earliest believers wanted most to communicate, and the creedal traditions were the means by which this theme was passed on, especially for those hearers who were illiterate.

Layer 8: The Early Epistles Minus the Creeds

Our eighth stage indicating that the initial gospel reports were exceptionally early is drawn from the New Testament Epistles minus the creedal texts themselves. So for instance, 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8–58 would be some of the major passages to be studied in this context (particularly 9:1; 15:8; and 15:11). Other texts to be considered on the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the implications of these truths would include the extended portion in 2 Cor 4:7–5:10, plus Rom 6:5–11; 8:9–23; 1 Thess 4:13–18; Col 3:1–11; 1 Pet 1:3–5.

The majority of these passages are authored by Paul. First Peter deserves more apostolic attention than it usually receives, especially if coauthors and similar options are considered.65 The options could possibly place the majority of these texts at somewhere between twenty and thirty years after the crucifixion or somewhat later. This is yet another indication of the earliness of the gospel message.

Layer 9: The Gospels and Acts

The ninth and last of the initial layers mentioned in this chapter regarding the earliness of the gospel message is what is drawn from the Gospels and Acts. Since we will examine in a later volume the key resurrection portions of these five volumes in a fair amount of detail, it will only be remarked here that even at approximately thirty-five to sixty years after the crucifixion, they remain quite early and exceptionally crucial sources for Jesus’s resurrection.

Until more recently, the tendency among especially more critical scholars has been to criticize the first three Gospels, or perhaps just John, as being too late to be helpful in a search for the historical Jesus. But these critiques seem shortsighted and even prejudiced in light of either a reasonable delineation of the time frame in which Jesus and early Christianity are investigated, or when comparing the distance to these Gospel accounts with any normal measures from ancient historical or religious studies. For instance, even Ehrman counts 100 years from the crucifixion as his measure for considering historical sources for Jesus, whether secular or religious.66 On Ehrman’s scale, all of our sources in this fifth group pass his marker with flying colors. Further, in the ancient world, sources from only 65 years after the events in question, like the Gospel of John, are prized highly.67 These considerations are clear indications of the wealth of data available for Jesus studies.

Another key component here is that the majority view among critical scholars is that each of the four Gospels and Acts is based in part on possible or probable sources that could well be even quite a bit earlier than these volumes themselves. The end of Mark is usually thought by most critical scholars to be based in large part on a prior passion narrative that was composed no later than AD 37, potentially placing that text back in the range of the very earliest creedal traditions. Luke states that he used other sources in composing his gospel, some of which were from eyewitnesses (1:1–4), and many commentators have remarked that his gospel bears the clearest marks of an ancient historical work. His companionship with Paul could also have provided some additional input. John’s Gospel is usually thought to be based in part on a prior miracles document, not to mention having perhaps the strongest postcanonical tradition in favor of John’s authorship. Lastly, Acts contains many valuable early sermon summaries often dated in the early 30s.68

In sum, even the Gospels and Acts are well within the ancient time window for presenting trustworthy information regarding Jesus. Further, a strong case can be made that each text is based on earlier sources, often more than one. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that if any or all of the traditional authors obtain, as the early Christian sources themselves argue, this would also be a huge boost regarding the reliability argument, since each of these would connect these writings much more closely to Jesus’s life. But as New Testament scholar R. T. France reminds us, the best argument in favor of the historicity of the Gospels is based on “their place as the earliest records of Jesus which have survived, and on the character of the tradition on which they are based.” As with the ancient secular historical arguments, the keys are “both the date and literary character” of the Gospels, which are strong.69 We have already noted Barnett’s comment that the earliness of the Christian sources presents “a brevity without parallel” when contrasted with other ancient personages.70

All nine of our categories show that the death and resurrection of Jesus were reported extremely early. This is agreed on a number of levels by virtually all scholarly specialists across the board, Christian and non-Christian, liberal and conservative alike. Actually, there is very little dispute on this point. Again, many researchers would hold that the earliest creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries date only a mere one to two years after the crucifixion itself, and almost none of these scholars would date all of these creeds and summaries after the mid-30s. This is truly a remarkable outcome arising from the recent historical studies. When taken together with the previous chapter’s conclusions that at least some of these early reports were garnered from eyewitnesses, this combination presents an impressive wall of data in favor of the resurrection appearances.

Additional unnumbered factors will now be added to the nine layers above. These points provide a variety of both strong as well as subsidiary considerations that the testimony of Jesus’s death and resurrection occurred shortly after these events.

A minimum of ten independent or mostly independent sources agree that Jesus was raised on or after the third day subsequent to the crucifixion.71 It is usually argued that the similar wording probably meant either the first day of the week or became the designation for a very brief time after the crucifixion.72 Either way, these multiple sources for the third day motif are yet another means of indicating the conviction that there was a very quick time lapse in between these occurrences.

The multiple sources in the previous note also indicate at least ten texts that provide narrative descriptions or statements recounting with various details that Jesus’s resurrection appearances followed his crucifixion and burial shortly afterward, confirming once again the early date of these events. This includes the highly respected creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3 that groups these occurrences very tightly and indicates that they were known quite early.

There are also multiple independent forms that are also helpful in confirming these occurrences. The texts described in the layers above involve narrative, didactic, creedal or sermon summaries, and apocalyptic forms.

Embarrassing factors are exceptionally strong with several relevant factors concerning the death and resurrection reports, including the disciples, virtual abandoning of Jesus in the garden, at the cross, and during his burial, as well as Peter’s denials and the women being the chief witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and first appearances. Likewise, Jesus’s disciples kept indicating their dissatisfaction with Jesus’s comments when he predicted his abandonment and death. Only later did they believe, and only then after several episodes of uncertainty. The disbelief of James and Jesus’s other family members, plus Paul starting his career as a church persecutor, are exceptionally germane.

Some limited discontinuity is also apparent, since there was little or virtually no expectation of a dying and rising messiah in the Old Testament before Jesus. Nor were the deity or two comings of the Messiah recognized in these times, with many commentators thinking that while the church definitely taught these ideas, they seemed to be attempting to explain Jesus’s ideas rather than inventing them.

Several relevant examples of an Aramaic substrata exist in this material, a key sign of early Palestinian data. Key examples would be Jesus’s cry on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani” (Mark 15:34) or Mary Magdalene’s exclamation of “Rabbounei!” when she recognized the risen Jesus standing next to her (John 20:16). Jesus being addressed as Lord (Marana tha) in early Aramaic circles (1 Cor 16:22) elucidates Jesus’s exalted status, addressed immediately below. Further, several of the Acts sermon summaries and/or the ancient account in 1 Cor 15:3–7 may have had Aramaic originals indicating especially early origins, but these discussions have not been settled.73

Enemy attestation is relevant in a few instances as well, depending on what aspects are being addressed. The main idea here is that if one’s opponents are convinced or even agree regarding some fact or theme, then this may be an indication that favors its truth. The chief examples in this context would most likely be drawn from the conversions and subsequent testimonies of Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, in their faith reversals, which are highly significant. But other examples do not garner anywhere near this force, such as the Jewish leaders who were present at the crucifixion and never questioned the reality of Jesus’s death. The historicity of the guards at the tomb in Matt 27:62–66 is seldom accepted by critical scholars. Whatever event(s) may underlie the amazing account of a large number of Jewish priests becoming believers in Acts 6:7b, the comment may indicate hints, but curious readers will apparently never know.

It will be argued below that there are many reasons that support the historicity of the empty tomb, and about 80 percent of critical scholars assessed in this present volume recognize the strength of these arguments.74 If the empty tomb were a historical fact, this event obviously happened before Paul’s conversion and so this would also count strongly as evidence that the resurrection message arose in the very earliest days of Christianity. But this argument awaits the chapter below.

In the previous chapter, it was argued in detail that many quite critical scholars, such as Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, independently recognize that group appearances of the risen Jesus are multiply attested in various sources. Those that are both multiply attested and also very early would certainly include the appearance to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5b) and to “all the apostles” (in 15:7b). Depending on how early either the M appearances in Matt 28:9–10 and 28:16–20, or the L appearances in Luke 24:36–53 might be, these could also perhaps join these ranks, though without being as powerful as the pre-Pauline examples.

Lastly, we will argue directly below that the teachings of the deity of Jesus Christ, as part of the homologia, were also attested at a very early date. Indeed, the earliest texts, including the creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries, are quite often dated around the same time as the homologia itself. This addition fits the entire pattern quite closely.

A stronger statement of combined reasons gathered from 2,000 years ago could hardly be imagined. That this collection brings together such early and eyewitness testimony that bears witness to the center of the Christian faith makes it even more remarkable. After treating another key cognate subject here, this case will be summarized briefly.

A Note on High Christology in the Creedal Traditions and Other Early Reports

In the preceding discussion of the gospel homologia, it was argued that the centermost message of the earliest church was the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The majority of this chapter so far has been spent on the early declaration of Jesus’s death and resurrection. But what ought to be said about the preaching and teaching of the deity of Jesus Christ in these earliest traditions? This is possibly the most ignored as well as the most frequently challenged aspect of this discussion. It is not the intent here to lay out the evidential case for whether or not Jesus taught or believed that he was deity, which is developed in much detail in a later volume of this study. Here we will only provide a few considerations why so many critical scholars likewise agree that Jesus’s deity was also an integral portion of this earliest homologia.

The comments mentioned above by G. B. Caird, L. D. Hurst, and Richard Bauckham (along with the research of other scholars) are striking reminders of the claim that the earliest teachings concerning Jesus’s deity were the highest Christology of all. Caird and Hurst added: “The further back we go, the more we discover the intense conviction of Jesus that God is his Father and he is His son.” This comment occurs within a discussion of several relevant and supportive New Testament passages that link this message with the central theme of the cross.75 As confirmation that these views came from Jesus himself, who thought of himself as God’s Son, these two authors refer to Jesus’s use of the Aramaic term abba in Mark 14:36, the Q affirmation in Matt 11:25–27//Luke 10:21–22, as well as Johannine texts like John 5:17, plus other passages, such as Jesus’s baptism.76

Bauckham wrote that the earliest Easter-oriented message revolved around the death and resurrection of Jesus,77 indicating that even at this very earliest time, the resulting Christology was already at its highest.78 Bauckham followed this provocative claim at the beginning of his volume with a number of related statements, including: “The practice of worshipping Jesus goes far back into early Jewish Christianity.”79 In this matter, both “general considerations, along with the available evidence, point to the earliest Palestinian Jewish Christianity. In the earliest Christian community, Jesus was already understood to be risen and exalted to God’s right hand in heaven.”80 Lastly, “the worship of Jesus was central . . . beginning in the early Palestinian Christian movement.”81 As indicated in Matthew’s closing scene in 28:17, the disciples worshipped Jesus after his proclamation that all authority in both heaven and earth resided in him.82

Reflecting ideas that are in concert with Bauckham’s (though exhibiting both similarities as well as distinctions from each other),83 Larry Hurtado specialized for some forty years on the question of the earliest Christian worship of Jesus. He also has stated that the “earliest devotion to Jesus” from very soon after Jesus’s death manifested an exceptionally high Christology. He writes, “Jesus’ exalted status ‘at God’s right hand’ had been affirmed by the one God,” who willed that Jesus be given “heavenly glory with the intention of all creation acclaiming Jesus as Lord.”84

For Hurtado, this extraordinarily high level of devotion occurred “very early at or near the outset of the early Christian movement.”85 The worship may in fact have been manifested just months after Jesus died!86 This occurrence was “so early that practically any evolutionary approach is rendered invalid as historical explanation.” Far from this process taking many years or even decades, what occurred was “a more explosively quick phenomenon . . . more like a volcano.”87 After the disciples’ post-crucifixion resurrection experiences, “honorific titles” were given to Jesus, incorporating preexistence and issuing forth into hymns, prayers, and worship directed to him.88

Regarding Jesus being the source of these teachings, Hurtado contends, “The Jesus-devotion manifest in the Markan Sanhedrin trial narrative is sufficient to have brought Jewish charges of blasphemy. As J. Markus has argued, Mark 14:61–62 is to be taken as a claim to ‘participation in God’s cosmic lordship’ and an ‘approach to equality with God.’” Continuing, Hurtado summarizes, “It is all the more likely that Jews would have responded with cries of blasphemy to the kind of Christological claims we have in Mark 14:61–62.”89

Other scholars could likewise be mentioned as supporting both the key Gospel texts plus the extraordinarily early dates for the proclamation of Jesus’s deity in the early church.90 But it will be sufficient here to mention Bart Ehrman’s latest view at this point. For Ehrman, “the idea that Jesus is God is not an invention of modern times, of course . . . it was the view of the very earliest Christians soon after Jesus’s death.”91 Actually, for Ehrman, the idea was inspired by the early belief in Jesus’s resurrection, as indicated when the disciples concluded that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. Then, Ehrman explains, “the earliest exaltation Christologies very quickly morphed into an incarnation Christology.”92 At the latest, these views of course need to be dated before the earliest canonical books in which the initial comments actually occurred, beginning about AD 50. We already have seen that Ehrman dates these initial oral passages to “the 30s of the Common Era” with some of these statements being dated a mere one to two years after the crucifixion of Jesus!93 Still, Ehrman’s view on these matters is not the orthodox conclusion.94

On the other hand, and in great contrast to the adoptionist position, what has sometimes been referred to as the “early high Christology movement” appears to be here to stay. This wide range of researchers, including some of the most influential Jesus scholars today, evince that these very early creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, in addition to the earliest epistles, offer plenty of ammo from the very earliest church to inform readers of the earliest views that emerged from Jesus’s teachings. Moreover, that strong skeptics from Bultmann to Ehrman concede much of this data provides quite a different perspective on these views—these records need to be explained in the best way possible.

This exalted Christological trend today may be viewed as a shocking alternative to those scholars who held or were inclined toward another view just a few decades ago. As described graphically (and once held) by the highly influential New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, this basic view was that it might have taken until the time of John’s Gospel for the church to unpack some of Jesus’s exalted teachings regarding his person. As Brown notes, “If Jesus reappeared about the year 100 . . . he would have found in that Gospel [of John] a suitable (but not an adequate) expression of his own identity.”95 In that light, tracing this early high Christology from just one to five years after the cross, as now held by so many critical scholars, may sound like a new approach to the originating date of this doctrine!

A Checklist: Data Supporting the Early Nature of the Disciples’ Experiences

The previous chapter argued that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, his disciples had experiences that absolutely convinced them that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, both singly as well as in groups. In this chapter, more than a dozen and a half major indications argued for the earliness of these facts. One could add to this count many more supplemental reasons that provide secondary support for the major arguments.96 All these points indicate that these experiences were proclaimed very quickly after the events within an exceptionally early time frame. When the subsidiary considerations are also included, well over two dozen total pointers could be enumerated evidencing that the early time period after these experiences was very brief. These sources and other factors are exceptionally well attested, providing criteria that specify particular indications of historicity.

The evidences presented in this chapter often share similar details with the support garnered elsewhere in this volume pertaining to other minimal facts due to the obvious interconnectedness of the entire subject. It is indeed an inextricably interlinked topic. But in each case where these resemblances occur, the particular portion that indicates the distinctive aspect of the message’s early proclamation will be particularly emphasized.

(1) The list of the early experiences believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus, such as the succinct list in 1 Cor 15:3–7, forms the crux of this entire discussion. These experiences were dated immediately after Jesus’s resurrection.

(2) As commented at the outset of this chapter, the initial layer of the disciples’ earliest proclamation of the “good news” (euaggelion) was that salvation was available through the person and work of Jesus Christ. This announcement and offer concerned the homologia, which was the agreed-upon heart of their message—the central truth of Christianity—involving the gospel content and the call to commitment to Jesus in light of it.

When used in the New Testament, homologia always appears to indicate the earliest confessions of faith. In Rom 10:9–10 for example, homologia is a statement concerning Jesus Christ or the act of commitment or personal relationship to Christ that brings salvation. It also introduces comments that refer to the person of Jesus Christ or to his identification by the use of lofty titles such as Christ, Lord, or Son of God.97 As Neufeld summarizes, “It is clear that the homologia represents the basic core of the Christian faith . . . the homologia embodied the essence of the Christian faith regarding the person of Jesus.”98

This proclamation began immediately in the early church just after Jesus’s crucifixion, including the claim that he had been seen alive again on many occasions. This message was Christological in nature, with the “core of essential conviction” emphasizing Jesus Christ’s deity, death, and resurrection.99

At the very beginning, regardless of whether these very early original apostolic teachings were communicated along with or apart from the creedal traditions, what is being discussed in this initial point is the content of the doctrinal message rather than its formalized expression. The actual message preceded the creedal form, at least for a brief time while the word was spreading.

(3) Another of the strongest arguments for the early nature of the disciples’ gospel proclamation developed as the more formal creedal traditions grew quickly. These might be thought of as the oral shells that encased the original homologia for the purpose of spreading an easily memorized form of the initial message largely due to the widespread illiteracy.

The consensus scholarly view even among non-Christian and skeptical specialists alike is that the evidence for the earliest of these confessions indicates that they should be dated to the first five or six years after the crucifixion at the latest (termed here the “pre-Pauline 1” time period). The most likely candidates here would probably include the traditional confessions such as Rom 1:3–4; 10:9; or the Acts sermon summaries like those in 3:15; 5:30–32; 10:39–42; and 13:28–31, with 1 Cor 15:3–7 occupying the lead position.100 For instance, atheist New Testament researcher Ehrman attests that all of the creeds that Paul cites later could have come from this “pre-Pauline 1” period of time—placing many or most of them at a maximum of two to three years after the crucifixion before Paul became a believer!101 When linked together with Paul’s meetings with the major apostles, this provides eyewitness backup to these primary reports at an exceptionally early date.

(4) On his trip to Damascus to persecute Christians, Paul reported that he had met the risen Jesus, providing his own testimony regarding his resurrection appearance (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8). Paul’s experience is generally dated by critical scholars to just two or three years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Not only is Paul’s testimony very early in itself, but he is also credited with being an eyewitness to this event.

(5) Based on the data, the consensus New Testament scholarly view indicates that Paul probably received the early creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from the Jerusalem disciples Peter and James when he visited them (Gal 1:18–20). The term historēsai (1:18) indicates getting to know someone and can also mean inquiring or even investigating data, as was the meaning back to Greek times. Most crucially, even if Paul did not receive the actual creed at this time, there is very little question that, at the very least, he minimally received and understood the original gospel message contained in the homologia. Paul’s visit served to confirm his own early, eyewitness experience with the testimonies of these other two apostolic eyewitnesses. The result yielded a combined foundation that was reinforced by the exceptional earliness of the creedal traditions.

(6) Paul returned to Jerusalem fourteen years later (Gal 2:1), which was still very early and would quite probably predate the earliest of the New Testament Epistles. On this occasion Paul specified that the purpose was to discuss the nature of the gospel message with the same two apostles that he questioned in his first trip, plus the apostle John (Gal 2:1–10, particularly 2:2). Rather incredibly, this meeting involved the four most influential apostles in the earliest church and resulted in the other apostles’ agreeing with Paul concerning the gospel message, for the others did not attempt to correct or modify Paul’s message (Gal 2:6b). The discussion ended with the Jerusalem apostles (“the pillars”) offering “the right hand of fellowship” to Paul and Barnabas (2:9). Such a gesture would hardly have been offered to false teachers and never to heretics!

These two meetings indicate that Paul and the other apostles were teaching the same central gospel message (the homologia) regarding the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, after just repeating the creedal message on Jesus’s appearances to the other apostles, including Peter and James (1 Cor 15:3–7), Paul reported that both he and they were all providing the same report on this subject (15:11). These two meetings in Jerusalem bound together the earliest eyewitnesses, the homologia, and the chief leaders in the church along with the early creedal traditions.

(7) A second group of creedal messages (termed “pre-Pauline 2” passages) are those that most likely date after Paul’s conversion until the New Testament Epistles in which they were recorded. Though it is almost impossible to separate most of these creeds from the earlier group, many scholars have argued that some of the best candidates in this group might include passages such as Rom 5:8; 8:11; 14:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 15:15; and Gal 1:4, as well as Eph 1:20; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:8, 11; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 1:21; 3:18; and possibly even Luke 24:34, as well as other Acts sermon summaries plus still other texts. A number of these creeds come from outside the group of the seven “authentic” Pauline Epistles, though the majority of these are still exceptionally early.

(8) Our eighth layer indicating that the initial gospel reports were exceptionally early is drawn from the canonical New Testament Epistles, minus the creedal texts that have already been counted. For example, 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8–58 (including 15:11) are the major passages to be studied in this context. Other texts to be considered teaching the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the implications of these truths would include the extended portion in 2 Cor 4:7–5:10, plus Rom 6:5–11; 8:9–23; 1 Thess 4:13–18; Col 3:1–11; and 1 Pet 1:3–5.

The majority of these passages were authored by Paul. Most of these texts would be dated between twenty and thirty years after the crucifixion. This is yet another indication of the earliness of the gospel message.

(9) The ninth and last of the initial layers mentioned in this chapter regarding the earliness of the gospel message is drawn from the Gospels and Acts. Since the key resurrection portions in these five writings will be examined in a fair amount of detail in this study, it will only be remarked here that even at approximately thirty-five to sixty-five years after the crucifixion, these texts still remain quite early, especially in relation to other ancient persons whether secular or religious. Until more recently, the tendency among especially the more critical scholars was to criticize the last three of the Gospels, or maybe just John, as being too late to be helpful in a search for the historical Jesus. But these critiques are shortsighted and even prejudiced in light of a reasonable delineation of the time frame in which Jesus and early Christianity were investigated, especially when comparing the distance to these Gospel accounts with any normal measures from ancient historical or religious studies.

Once again, even Ehrman counts 100 years from the crucifixion onward as his measure for considering historical sources for Jesus, and all five of these texts pass this standard with flying colors, with Ehrman assembling useful data from each.102 In the ancient world, sources from only sixty-five years after the events in question, like John’s Gospel, are prized highly, as pointed out above.103

The majority view among critical scholars is that each of the four Gospels and Acts is probably based in part, especially in key places for our study, on sources much earlier than these writings themselves. We have already reported how Acts contains many exceptionally valuable early sermon summaries that are often dated in the early 30s. These considerations are clear indications of the wealth of data in these writings that are available for historical Jesus studies. As the earliest writings on Jesus, not to mention with this even earlier support, there are vast resources here. Historian Barnett’s comment that the earliness of the Christian sources presents “a brevity without parallel” as compared to other ancient persons remains.104

The first nine layers indicate that the death and resurrection of Jesus were reported extremely early, with a majority of specialists across the board, Christian and non-Christian alike, liberal through conservative, agreeing in at least various key places here. When combined with the previous chapter’s conclusions that at least some of these early reports were garnered from eyewitnesses, this combination presents an impressive wall of data in favor of the resurrection appearances.

(10) As already pointed out above, a minimum of ten independent sources agree to the specific phrase that Jesus was raised on or after “the third day” subsequent to the crucifixion. Commentators frequently take this as indicating that the first Sunday after the crucifixion, or a very brief time later, is a particular demarcation that this proclamation was early.

(11) Further, it has also been delineated often in this study (such as the previous chapter) that there are dozens of multiple, independent sources in addition to the creeds that report an early date for Jesus’s crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and appearances, along with the proclamation of the gospel message. These mentions readily confirm the early timing of these events in relation to the cross.

(12) Beyond the multiple sources, there are also multiple independent forms that help confirm these occurrences. These types of material include predictive, didactic, creedal or sermon summaries, and apocalyptic genres.

(13) Many embarrassing factors are exceptionally strong in the death and resurrection reports. These include the previous unbelief by Jesus’s brother James along with other members of his family; Jesus’s disciples abandoning Jesus in the garden as he prayed as well as later at the cross and burial; Peter’s multiple denials; the women being the chief witnesses to the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and first appearances; plus Paul starting his career as a church persecutor. It is true that embarrassing scenarios can be invented for effect, but it remains exceptionally difficult to envision repeated situations where huge debacles and humiliations accompany the key persons in the story, with the incidents being told by multiple authors, where those involved were still the chief leaders when many of the stories were being told.

(14) Limited examples of discontinuity are also apparent, since there was little or virtually no expectation of a dying, rising, or a deified messiah or two comings of the Messiah in the prominent Old Testament interpretation of Jesus’s day. Likewise, Jesus’s disciples kept getting bothered when Jesus repeatedly taught these things. Only later did they believe.

(15) The appearance of Aramaic words and phrases in key places in this material is often thought to be a sign of early Palestinian data. Crucial examples in the early Gospel reports would include Jesus’s cry on the cross of “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani” (Mark 15:34), or Mary Magdalene’s exclamation of “Rabbounei!” when she recognized the risen Jesus standing beside her (John 20:16). Paul invokes the words Marana tha (1 Cor 16:22), which addresses Jesus with the lofty title of “Lord.” Further, several of the Acts sermon summaries and/or the ancient creedal account in 1 Cor 15:3–7 may well have had Aramaic originals too.105

(16) Enemy attestation is relevant in a few instances as well, with the chief idea being that if one’s opponents are convinced or even agree regarding the truth of an event or teaching, then that could constitute a powerful argument in favor of these items. The best examples are undoubtedly the conversions of James, the brother of Jesus, and Saul of Tarsus, especially in the latter case of a true enemy. The Jewish leaders were present at the crucifixion and never questioned the reality of Jesus’ death, even afterwards in the confrontations in the early chapters of Acts when the disciples stood before the Jewish leaders. Unfortunately, we can only guess which causes contributed to the surprising account that a large number of Jewish priests also became believers in Acts 6:7b.

(17) It will be argued later in this volume that there are many strong arguments in support of the empty tomb, and many critical scholars accept the historicity of this event.106 If the empty tomb were a historical fact, this would also count strongly as evidence that the resurrection message was dated in the very earliest days of Christianity.

(18) It was argued in the previous chapter that even a number of very critical New Testament scholars have recognized that group appearances of the risen Jesus are multiply attested. A couple of cases that are both multiply attested and also very early would certainly include the appearance to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5b) and another to “all the apostles” (in 15:7b). Depending on whether there are additional, earlier data behind either the M source appearances in Matt 28:9–10 and 28:16–20 or the L source account in Luke 24:36–53, these could also add to the argument that these cases were early, multiply attested texts.

(19) A last consideration is that brief discussions in this chapter also indicated that the deity of Jesus Christ was also taught at an exceptionally early date, at approximately the same time as the rest of the homologia. This indicates an overall message that now seems even a little tighter than before this addition, originating at precisely after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Since according to Paul as well as the other apostles the gospel proclamation certainly included the teaching of Jesus’s deity,107 death, and resurrection, this indicates the force of the homologia. Paul’s most important contribution to the early church may have been his two trips to Jerusalem to interview the three other apostles (“the pillars”) to ascertain and pass on each other’s eyewitness agreement on the gospel message. In sum, the original message of the homologia, the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, plus the grounding provided by the “big four” eyewitness apostles and their agreement on the resurrection appearances all occurred at an exceptionally early date.108 When including Paul’s prior conversion experience, the final argument on the nature of the gospel message is solid.

Conclusion

There is comparatively little question or challenge from scholars publishing in the recent literature, whether unbelievers, liberal, conservative, or in between, that the proclamation of the gospel message dates from the very earliest church. As agnostic New Testament specialist A. J. M. Wedderburn summarizes, “From earliest times it was a basic tenet of Christian belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead. . . . One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, for in all probability this statement gives the content of the Christian faith which Paul himself had received, a content, therefore, which may well go back to the time of Paul’s conversion, most probably in the first half of the 30s.”109 Critical scholar Reginald Fuller concurs and then takes the matter one step further: “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the central claim of the church’s proclamation. There was no period when this was not so.”110 Citing 1 Cor 15:11, prominent historical Jesus researcher John Meier asserts that “from the very beginning of Christian preaching about Jesus,” certain facts were known concerning him, to which all agreed. Like Fuller, Meier also affirms that “there was no period” when this early picture of Jesus was “bereft of the larger grid that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus provided.”111

Continuing in a similar vein, N. T. Wright echoes these sentiments: “There is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief.”112 Broadening this thought elsewhere, Wright emphasizes, “The question of Jesus’ resurrection lies at the heart of the Christian faith. There is no form of early Christianity known to us—though there are some that have been invented by ingenious scholars—that does not affirm at its heart that after Jesus’ shameful death God raised him to life again.”113

The essential theme of this chapter has been that Jesus’s resurrection was the vital focus of the very earliest Christian message, forming the very heart of its centermost message of the gospel homologia, along with the deity and death of Jesus Christ. This was evidenced initially by the convergence of preaching and teaching from a large variety of independent sources, as many New Testament authors placed this message first and foremost. Further, the homogeneity of this message was confirmed by the apostles. We have argued that this teaching was at the very heart of the majority of the homologia.114

In fact, an argument that combines the historical evidence in favor of the original homologia along with especially the earliest pre-Pauline creedal traditions, Paul’s eyewitness appearance, plus his two trips to Jerusalem where he gained data from the other key eyewitnesses, provides an exceptionally probable case for the resurrection appearances of Jesus. These texts are without much doubt among the strongest data indicating that the gospel message was extraordinarily early and well grounded. It is difficult to construct a way around this combination of factors, hence this grouping plus other considerations could well be the chief reasons why naturalistic theses have increasingly been abandoned, as these items appear sufficient to refute these alternative suggestions.

Moving forward just a few more years, the later creeds that still date before Paul’s Epistles (dubbed the “pre-Pauline 2” examples) beginning around the twenty-year mark after the crucifixion are still invaluable resources. The additional information gathered from the remainder of the Epistles and, lastly, from the Gospels and Acts adds to the earliness of everything that took place. Even the Gospels and Acts, which are usually considered to be the latest of this information, date far closer to the events in question than virtually any sources for any other major world religious founders. There is nothing like this mountain of evidence in ancient history for any other persons.

The data in this chapter support the facticity of the third minimal historical fact—the early proclamation of the gospel message. As such, it contributes another aspect that must be explained naturally by resurrection opponents. The initial nine layers of evidence above, with each supporting the overall case for Christian origins especially as they back up the homologia, constitute a vital cog in the overall resurrection evidence and message.

Supported by many historical considerations, the case for the early date of the gospel homologia message is solid. Our nine initial levels, especially the earlier ones, are very strong, especially with the Christological and soteriological motifs. But it will naturally be asked by the skeptics why these creeds and other materials are any different from many common sorts of hearsay, ungrounded religious speculation, or even gossip? For that matter, do not all religions possess stories of this sort? What distinguishes this early Christian message, or makes it any different than what other religions possess? Granted that these creedal traditions are exceptional and admittedly very early, that alone does not guarantee that they are historical accounts. How is it known that they are nothing more than early gossip? These are good questions to consider.

Although we have been careful to argue that there are many other differences that distinguish this present argument from the others of either a religious or secular nature,115 this chapter has zeroed in on several chief aspects that the Christian message is not only far closer to the original events and sources than other messages in the ancient world, but that they are also backed by crucial eyewitness information. Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem are a vital indication of this, as he took these journeys for the express purpose of interviewing the three most influential apostles before him to inquire about their own eyewitness testimony. One crucial indication of this argument is that the atheistic, agnostic, and other non-Christian specialists in these areas almost always freely acknowledge these realities. As Ehrman asks regarding Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”116

This is where the theme of the previous two chapters in this study come into play and must be combined. It was argued in this chapter that there were between one and a half and two dozen total indications (counting both major and secondary arguments) that the same early message considered here was also tied to the eyewitness testimony outlined in the previous chapter. Moreover, these many considerations entered the picture from a variety of independent angles. The summary points listed zeroed in on a few of these more important emphases.

In short, the exceptionally early dates from a plethora of sources, including the four leading apostolic eyewitnesses who were the most influential apostles in the earliest church, are thus most likely anchored in real interviews and statements concerning what these observers actually saw. Data such as these are not very likely derived from gossip, tall tales, and the like, especially when three of these four individuals—Paul, Peter, and James the brother of Jesus—willingly suffered martyrdom for their witness, according to first-century sources.117

Thus, the major Christian message of the homologia, both in the first century as well as at present, is strongly evidenced, being tied to early and eyewitness observations that are unprecedented elsewhere. Early eyewitnesses either did or did not see Jesus after his death by crucifixion.118 Further, these sightings either did or did not happen to groups of observers as well. Without even discussing at present the cognate subject of whether or not such appearances were miraculous acts performed by God, the question at this point is just twofold: Did Jesus die by crucifixion? Was Jesus seen again after this death? The early and eyewitness components here combine to make a powerful case for an affirmative answer.119

Notes

1 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 202; cf. 61–62, 86 (see chap. 2, n. 15). For a consideration of whether these experiences were actually bodily appearances of the risen Jesus, see the chapter below as well as subsequent discussions in later volumes of this study.

2 Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–53; John 20:21, 31; Acts 1:8; pseudo-Mark 16:15–20.

3 Craig Keener notes that the majority of scholars conclude that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are aspects of the same visit, including multiply attested parallels. See Keener, Acts, 361 (see chap. 9, n. 38).

4 This would include the Gospel texts noted above, perhaps counting as many as three or four attesting sources. For instance, to repeat briefly our overview in the previous chapter, Crossan counted three to four sources among these same Gospel passages in Crossan, Historical Jesus, 436 (see chap. 6, n. 44), while the Jesus Seminar preferred four to five sources here, both depending on how the passages are counted. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454 (see chap. 4, n. 84). Another example concerns Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem for the discussions with the other three apostles in Galatians 1–2. In this case, Acts 15:1–35 would either constitute a second independent attesting source for Paul’s later visit (which is the favored critical view, as Keener noted above) or is an indication of yet a third visit to Jerusalem with at least Paul, Peter, and James present from among the apostles (vv. 2, 7–11, 13–21). Once again, these leaders together affirmed the gospel message (esp. 15:7–11).

5 This central, unified message is most obvious in Luke 24:46–48; Acts 2:22–36; 3:13–20; 4:10b–12; 5:29–32; 10:38–43; 13:26–39; 17:1–4, 30–31; Gal 2:1–10; cf. Rom 1:3–4; 10:9. Perhaps surprising to many is that Bart Ehrman provides a similar list of the data here in How Jesus Became God, 108 (see chap. 6, n. 173), especially when the high Christological beliefs of the earliest Christians are considered as well (3, 84 in particular, plus 249–50, 370), though Ehrman interprets these views in an adoptionistic manner, to be discussed below. The extending of this theme into the decades after the first century and beyond is developed by Taylor, Jesus before Constantine, 142 (see chap. 10, n. 53).

6 Again, the Jesus Seminar is helpful here in giving Paul’s testimony a red rating where “the historical reliability of this information is virtually certain.” The early creedal report regarding Peter’s experience was given a pink rating that indicates that it contains “probably reliable” data. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, with both quotations on 36–37. Ehrman’s comments in Did Jesus Exist?, 144–46, 148 (see chap. 2, n. 15) also have a similar ring to them.

7 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–17, with these quotations on 16 (see chap. 2, n. 22).

8 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:43–48 (see chap. 4, n. 84). Bultmann points out that many pre-crucifixion “sending” texts of various sorts are also present, such as Mark 6:7; Matt 10:16; 11:28; 18:15–18; 19:28; Luke 10:19; 22:28–30 (esp. 48). Just a few of these other scholars who discuss the church’s obedience to the teachings of the pre- and/or postresurrection Jesus’s message to preach everywhere includes Crossan, Historical Jesus, 398; Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230, 232–34 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, particularly 49, also 35, 41 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 1:859, 861 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 67–70, esp. 70 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 22.

9 We are referring here primarily to some of the more common terms, such as homologia, euaggelion, kerygma, didachē, paradosis, and pistis.

10 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13–14 (see chap. 8, n. 70).

11 Neufeld, 17–18.

12 Neufeld, 141.

13 Neufeld, 20.

14 Beyond Neufeld, 140–46, for a number of other crucial discussions and distinctions here, see some of the highly influential works by Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–64 (see chap. 2, n. 22); cf. also Cullmann’s insightful volumes The Christology of the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), esp. chap 7, plus 311–12, 321–23; and The Early Church: Historical and Theological Studies, trans. A. J. B. Higgins and S. Godman (London: SCM, 1956), particularly chap. 4; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 11–12, 16–17, 21–24, 26–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 171, 177 (see chap. 9, n. 12); Richard N. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), esp. 20–28, 56, 59, 63–64. On Longenecker’s treatment of the relation between the early pre-Pauline hymns and the homologiai, see 13–20. Much relevant material on these topics can be found in Michael Bird, ed., How God Became Jesus, particularly in chaps. 1–3 by Bird and chap. 5 by Simon Gathercole (see excursus 1, n. 57).

15 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9–12, quotation on 11.

16 See Neufeld, 10–12, 20–21, 48, 51, 140–46, along with the other authors in the detailed note just above, who also agree on this central content. See Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–58; Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 317–28; Cullmann, Early Church, 63–63, 72–73; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17, 21–23, 27–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 163–69; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 52, 56–57.

17 G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology, ed. L. D. Hurst (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994),

18 Hengel, “Christological Titles in Early Christianity,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 383, as quoted by Bart Ehrman in How Jesus Became God, 370–71.

19 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 370–71, just before and after the Hengel quotation immediately above. Note that the adoptionist position is described in detail below.

20 Ehrman, New Testament, 44, 290 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

21 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, esp. x in the context of ix–xii, 6n5, 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68 (see excursus 1, n. 95).

22 Bauckham, x.

23 Hurtado, How on Earth, 36 (see chap. 9, n. 32). For more details, see pp. 2–9, 23–30, 36–42, 48–50. Cf. also Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 118–19 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 4, 11–15, 99–116 (see excursus 1, n. 95).

24 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix–x, 128, 259, 268; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71; 307–8 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Hurtado, How on Earth, 6, 30, 33, 36, 48, 93, 192–94; cf. also Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 828–41, 854–57, 873–79; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. chaps. 12 and 19, plus 382–83, 476–77, 551–53, 707, 710 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 3, 84, 108.

25 Gerd Lüdemann is especially strong here (Resurrection of Jesus, 38; see chap. 6, n. 173); also Michael Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,” 48 (see chap. 10, n. 24); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454, making a crucial point that this agreement refers at least to the “components of the list” of appearances behind the proclamation in 1 Cor 15:3 and following; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 61–62, 86; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 855, also 864; Hurtado, How on Earth, 4, 30, cf. 36; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–69, 271; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125 (see excursus 1, n. 12). Even Ehrman places these public teachings within one to two years after Jesus’s crucifixion in Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 145–46, 251, 261, 290. Other major critical scholars who seem to agree that this is a likely scenario include Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149 (see excursus 1, n. 19).

26 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 168–69, 173, 175; Hurtado, How on Earth, 193–94; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–19.

27 In Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament, in his discussions particularly in vol. 1, chaps. 2 and 3, this scholar is plainly aware that “tradition-like” and “formula-like” statements (as he is often prone to call them, as on 1:82) are found in the New Testament Epistles, and he interacts regularly with other scholars regarding some of these questions. As discussed in more detail above, Bultmann attempts in these two chapters to parcel out which traditions might have come from Jesus and the earliest church proclamation, and which teachings may have been imported from the Hellenistic churches. In general, one of Bultmann’s tendencies was to identify the items that he considered to be high Christology, such as the title “Lord” being used for Jesus, concluding that this came not from the “earliest” church but from Hellenistic sources (1:46–47, 83, 125, 128–32, 295, 298–99). He does acknowledge that some of these statements or traditions “evidently existed before Paul and had been handed down to him” (1:82).

28 For just the two perhaps most prominent researchers and their conclusions here, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, particularly page x in the broader context of ix–xii, 6 and cf. 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68; Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9, 23–30, 36–42, 48–50.

29 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16. See also Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 70.

30 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

31 Ehrman, 97. Ehrman often reinforces the comment that many early Christian sources date to the 30s, right after the crucifixion (22, 27, 92–93, 97, 131–32, 141, 251, 254).

32 One of the most notable examples of specific support for these arguments comes from Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–69, 308. Cf. some similar comments in Dunn’s immediate context, Jesus Remembered, 855–56. These and related points are made by many other researchers, such as Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 230–31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50; and Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, 19, 26, 31. Skeptical researcher Howard Clark Kee even makes a similar point, adding the rather stunning addendum that this early testimony “can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting.” Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2, cf. 86–87 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

33 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864, cf. 861–62.

34 Dunn, 854.

35 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454.

36 John Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 358n43 (see chap. 10, n. 146).

37 Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 101–5, quotation on 101.

38 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 856, 864.

39 Hurtado, How on Earth, 36, cf. 30.

40 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125, listing a number of other very early confessions in the same context (125–26).

41 Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99 (see chap. 6, n. 81).

42 Of the pages from Ehrman listed earlier in this chapter as specifying early Christian sources that he dated in the 30s, Ehrman specifies that several of these texts actually date from AD 30–32 in Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 251, 254, cf. 131–32, 141; also, Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, cf. 216.

43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 261, also 110–13, 130, 172.

44 For recent assessments, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71, esp. 266; also Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, particularly 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47). A couple of the older sources that move in the same direction include Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351; and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3–7,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): particularly 582, 584, 587, 589.

45 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

46 Reginald Fuller, “The Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1979), 93–94; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113, also 274n265 (see chap. 1, n. 42); Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 254–55; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 234 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

47 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210; also 12 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

48 See our chapter comparison in this study of more than a half dozen areas where the historical case for Jesus exceeds the historical strength of other examples in antiquity for any other religious founder.

49 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89 (see chap. 2, n. 28).

50 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 129 (see chap. 10, n. 56).

51 In addition to the more specific comments just listed by Lüdemann, Ehrman, Hurtado, Dunn, Kasper, Drane, Kloppenborg, Murphy-O’Connor, Dodd, Bauckham, and Ware, see the additional lists of creedal traditions listed throughout the works by Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions; and Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins.

52 The Acts sermon segments in which this traditional material is likely found include Acts 1:21–22; 2:22–36; 3:13–16; 4:8–10; 5:29–32; 10:39–43; 13:28–31; 17:3; 17:30–31.

53 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, where these twin emphases are evidenced often. See 10–12, 18, 20–29, 43–60, 67–68, 79–80, 90–91, 131–32, 136, 140–46.

54 Just a few of the large number of critical scholars who date Paul’s conversion at two to three years after Jesus’s death would include Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144, 157, 172, 246, 261; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 90; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 128 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16. A slightly longer time frame is favored by the Jesus Seminar, who date Paul’s conversion at three to four years later; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454. An earlier time is preferred by Barnett at one year later; see Birth of Christianity, 26. Dunn prefers one-and-a half to two years later in Jesus Remembered, 142–43, 837n51, 864; cf. Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 76–77; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 31–32 (see chap. 10, n. 66).

55 Some of the details can be found in Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 76–77; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 31–32. Cf. Dunn, Why Believe in Jesus’ Resurrection?, 10 (see chap. 10, n. 59). Cf. 2 Cor 11:32.

56 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, argues that receiving the creed in Jerusalem from Peter and James is now the consensus position among scholars; see esp. 266–67, also 271, 273, 307–8; Licona, “Primary Sources,” 30 (see chap. 10, n. 155); James Ware writes: “There is almost universal scholarly consensus that 1 Cor 15.3–5 contains a carefully preserved tradition pre-dating Paul’s apostolic activity and received by him within two to five years of the founding events.” It could hardly be said any better. See Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98.

57 Helmut Koester dates Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem in AD 48 in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Barnett dates the events there at AD 47 in Jesus and the Logic of History, 133 (see excursus 1, n. 94).

58 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–48.

59 It has been stated elsewhere that the Jesus Seminar has demarcated the appearance to Paul with a red rating, which is the highest that can be given to an event, indicating that “the historical reliability of this information is virtually certain. It is supported by a preponderance of evidence.” Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 36. Specifically, Paul’s eyewitness appearance was reported “on his own behalf” (453, 458–59, 553, 563, quotation on 533). Peter’s appearance was rated pink (450, 452, 454, 533), meaning that the material is still “probably reliable” (36) because it is trustworthy information but Peter did not provide the report himself, as did Paul (454). Here’s the further point: in this same way, then, we could also rate the appearances to James the brother of Jesus, John, and the other apostles as probable (pink) because they are reported in the exact same list of appearances as was Peter’s (1 Cor 15:3–7, esp. vv. 5b, 7). The Jesus Seminar issued the same verdict on behalf of the female witnesses to a resurrection appearance even without this clear of a report on their behalf (452, 454). This is another critical witness to the strength of these appearance reports.

60 These two phases of pre-Pauline 1 and 2 creeds were treated at length in the previous chapter.

61 Bart Ehrman dates Paul’s seven Epistles from AD 50–60 in New Testament, 43–44. Helmut Koester dates these epistles even earlier, from AD 50–56, in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:101–4.

62 Of course, these dates can vary. For instance, if the crucifixion is dated AD 33, which is the second most popular choice among researchers, and if Koester’s dates for Paul’s Epistles are preferred, the distance here is only twenty-three years later, from approximately AD 33 to 56; see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:101–4.

63 This point and related ones have been made from different angles by researchers like Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, 26, 31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 19–20, 23–27; Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 207, 216–17, for examples; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 48–49, 143–45; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–81, 163–71; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 198–99; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 91, 95, 133, 164.

64 The mention of Luke 24:34 raises another potential question. Though it is a tricky area where it is difficult to be overly dogmatic, researchers have differentiated types or categories of creeds and related traditions. Suggestions include hymns, worship, more specific liturgical practices such as baptismal rites, and didactic situations, among others. On these, see Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 18–34; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, esp. 8, 44, 61–68, 140, plus 17, 46, 82, 88, 99–101, 106–7, 122–24, 127–28, 133, 136–37; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 105; Victor Paul Furnish, Jesus according to Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), particularly 24, 27, 31, 113. But with the major research of James D. G. Dunn and others on how traditions may have developed initially even during Jesus’s preaching and then later in the composition of the Gospels (especially as represented in Dunn’s volume Jesus Remembered), this may introduce another angle that may be related to these creedal types. Luke 24:34 seems to stick out as a textual oddity when viewed next to the Acts sermon summaries and the brief comments in the Epistles, even though it is among the most frequently mentioned of the candidates for creedal traditions. This simply raises the awareness of how additional traditional categories may continue to emerge.

65 Researchers take a wide range of views on the authorship and date of 1 Peter, but this is not the place for such a discussion. An overview and synopsis would be difficult in a brief note, but perhaps a surprising number of critical scholars still favor the authorship of Peter or a variant of this position, given what could be considered as the coauthorship of Silvanus, as mentioned in 5:12, or others like Mark (5:13). This note is primarily for the purpose of mentioning that one of these positions could still place 1 Peter in the range of dates provided above. See the weighty overview and conclusions on these preliminary subjects in Craig S. Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), esp. 8–30. Similar moves regarding authorship might also be made for Colossians, in light of the other companions that are named (1:1; 4:7–14).

66 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 56, 97, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41.

67 Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 11–12, 34 (see chap. 4, n. 54); Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad, 1–22, 239–44 (see chap. 6, n. 187); Grant, Jesus, 176, 199–204 (see chap. 1, n. 24); Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:1–2, 101–4, cf. 132; Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, 49–52, 67–68; Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 53, 71–72 (see chap. 10, n. 59); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 175n13; Bruce Metzger, “Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11–24; Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 6–17 (see chap. 6, n. 3); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 74–77; cf. the additional details in Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 55–58, 158–61, 163–65.

68 These sources will be discussed in detail in our later chapters on each of these five books. Appropriate sources along with further discussion can be found there, as well as somewhat in the previous footnote.

69 France, The Evidence for Jesus, 123–25 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

70 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, cf. also 12.

71 Ehrman similarly includes in his number counts both the “completely” or “entirely” independent sources along with those that are mostly, largely, or even “partially” independent. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 78, 92, 97. For an explanation of this term after, see the chapter in this volume, “The Last Four Known Facts.”

72 This includes the four (two) Gospel sources (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; 16:1; Matt 26:61; 28:1; Luke 24:1, 7; John 2:19; 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7) as well as the Gospel sources Q (Matt 12:40//Luke 11:30; Matt 16:21//Luke 9:22; Matt 20:19//Luke 18:33), M (Matt 17:23; 26:61; 27:40 63); L (Luke 13:32; 24:46); an Acts sermon summary (10:40); a pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:3); Paul (1 Cor 16:1); Josephus (Ant. 18.3.3) and the Gospel of Peter (8:30; 9:35). Dodd, Metzger, and Keener are a few of the examples of critical scholars who regularly recognize that the third-day motif was fixed in the earliest Christian tradition due to Jesus’s resurrection; see Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17; Metzger, “Methodology,” 18; Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 337 (see chap. 8, n. 70). Metzger even notes that the third-day theme was “fixed prior to Paul’s conversion”; see 18, in the period that we dubbed here the “pre-Pauline 1” phase. On the third day indicating a short period of time; note Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 324–29.

73 Dodd thinks that the summary account in Acts 10:34–43 is where “the evidence for an Aramaic original is at its strongest.” See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 20. Cf. Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, particularly 171–81.

74 See chapter 15, “The Empty Tomb,” in this volume. Note Wright’s conclusion that the empty tomb is one of a very small number of historical facts in early Christianity where the historical evidence is such that it ranks “in the same sort of category, of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.” Quote from Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 710.

75 Caird and Hurst, New Testament Theology, 398–404, with the above quotation on 400.

76 Caird and Hurst, 398–403.

77 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, particularly 268, cf. also ix, 128, 259.

78 Bauckham, x, cf. 30.

79 Bauckham, 25.

80 Bauckham, 128.

81 Bauckham, 151.

82 Bauckham, 25.

83 For instance, Hurtado, How on Earth, 23–25, though also noting Bauckham’s closeness to some of his own ideas in Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 12n17, 46–47; cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 141.

84 Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9.

85 Hurtado, 23; also 42.

86 Hurtado, 36.

87 Hurtado, 25, also 37.

88 Hurtado, 27–30. Strangely enough, Hurtado spends surprisingly little time on the nature or other details of Jesus’s resurrection appearances themselves beyond what we have mentioned here. On these appearances, see Hurtado, 6, 93, 192–94; see also Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 72, 78, 170; Hurtado, One God, One Lord, esp. 118–19, also 68, 94–95, 116–17, 124.

89 Hurtado, How on Earth, esp. 167–68, in part quoting Joel Marcus, “Mark 14:61: Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?,” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 125–41.

90 Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, “βλασφημεω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:621–25 (see chap. 7, n. 61), especially the pithy language on 623, where Jesus is portrayed as having crossed the line of blasphemy by his claims of being “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty.” Cf. also Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus in Mark 14:53–65, vol. 106 of Wissenschaftliche zum Neuen Testament, second series (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1998; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), particularly 195–237; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 256–62 (see excursus 1, n. 56).

91 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 3.

92 Ehrman, 248–49, also 84, 279, 370.

93 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 172, 111–12, 130–31, 261–62.

94 It should be mentioned at this juncture that while Ehrman does make a number of striking admissions here in keeping with the strong canonical data available, he thinks that a few of the New Testament authors held to some early aspects of what came to be known years later as adoptionism; see Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 5, 44, 49, 209, 218, 231–35, 249. This topic is multifaceted and cannot be unpacked in much detail here, except to say that Ehrman holds that even in this early manifestation, Jesus was thought to be a man who was exalted to the status of the Son of God by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. In other words, Jesus became divine at his resurrection. This position regarding a few of these early texts is also a prominent view taken in recent decades among other more liberal interpreters as well. In the more developed, later adoptionist view, Jesus was not intrinsically or eternally the Son of God or Lord before his birth, but he was a man who had been exalted, divinized, worshipped, and seated on the right hand of God as a result of either his baptism, his transfiguration, or his resurrection. In more general terms, these later descriptions of exaltation are more frequently connected with the classical Christian position.

Perhaps the most influential scholar to take this position, identified in this volume as that of Ehrman and certain liberal scholars, was John Knox, who developed it in several works. For example, in The Humanity and Divinity of Christ: A Study of Pattern in Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), Knox asks how particular passages that he considers to favor very clearly this proto-adoptionistic position can “be interpreted to mean anything else”? (8). Yet, Knox exempts Paul and John from holding this position (19–20), and probably Luke as well (7), to whom are attributed the bulk of the canonical New Testament writings. Knox agrees with Ehrman that this early form of adoptionism was the most primitive Christology. See Knox, Christ the Lord, 85–86 (see chap. 10, n. 10); Knox, Humanity and Divinity of Christ, 7. But they would be hard pressed to prove this claim. It sounds far more like a bare assertion (as seems to be the case in Christ the Lord, 85–86n1), where Knox states that this position “may seem arbitrary” and then he just pushes ahead and asserts it anyway! In trying to explain the widespread belief in the preexistence of Jesus (95), Knox also has no trouble stating that while preexistence and the worship of Jesus Christ flow naturally from the orthodox position, he thinks it also can be a consequence of adoptionism too, including in its very fullest, metaphysical sense (Christ the Lord, 87–89, 95, 98)!

In making such a bold claim, Knox usurps the idea of preexistence as part of his own view when it certainly does not follow directly or naturally from adoptionism but is recognized, as he even notes, as part and parcel of the orthodox position. For instance, why should a human being born in normal space and time, who is later “drafted” as the Son of God, ever have been thought to have existed from eternity past or worshipped? But if Knox is accounting for the New Testament data, he must make these moves because they are clearly taught in a number of texts like the early creedal traditions in Phil 2:6–11 and Col 1:15–20. It is yet another indication of the liberties that Knox takes seemingly to claim as much territory as possible! It almost sounds like anything that can blunt the influence of orthodoxy is worthwhile! One excellent, multiple rejoinder aimed directly at the adoptionist position are the multiple critiques developed in Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). Also very helpful in several respects over a wide number of areas, especially in its inclusion of a highly impressive cadre of writers, is Bird, How God Became Jesus, esp. 17–18, 98, 103–10, 158–64, 203. For critical comments concerning adoptionist views by another scholar who at least may have had some affinities to it in the past, see also Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, esp. 216–21.

95 Brown, New Testament Christology, 203n304 (see chap. 8, n. 17). Ben Witherington is no doubt one of many scholars who have repeated Brown’s catchy comment; see Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 277.

96 This depends on how these subarguments are divided further, such as canonical and noncanonical sources, the Gospels or Paul, or the difference between the creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries. It goes without saying that how these subsidiary points are counted or interpreted will change the number of subsidiary considerations.

97 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 17–20.

98 Neufeld, 141.

99 Neufeld, 10–12, 18–21, 48, 51, 140–46.

100 It should be noted that all of these traditions have been combined here into a single argument when they could be broken down into additional components, such as with the Acts sermon summaries being categorized a little differently, given their somewhat different nature.

101 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 261.

102 Ehrman, 56, 97, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41.

103 Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 11–12, 34; Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad, 1–22, 239–44; Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, 49–52, 67–68; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 175n13; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 55–58, 158–61, 163–65.

104 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, cf. also 12.

105 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, esp. 20.

106 See chapter 15.

107 Occasionally, scholars resist counting Jesus’s deity as an essential part of the gospel homologia. At least three responses might be made. One way Jesus’s deity is indicated is by his critically respected comments in passages such as Mark 2:1–12; Matt 11:25–27//Luke 10:21–22 (cf. Luke 7:49); and Mark 13:32; 14:36, 61–64. Second, the titles given to Jesus in the creedal passages include the Son of God and Lord in Rom 1:3–4, or Lord in Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23. Some creedal traditions assert the very nature of Jesus Christ, as in Phil 2:6 or Heb 1:3. Plus, if Jesus has been moved into the Old Testament Shema in 1 Cor 8:6, Jesus’s deity is certainly present in that message. These are very weighty texts indeed. Third, it might be asked whether Paul (or Peter or John and so on) would allow that a Christian is one who accepts the death and resurrection of Jesus while denying his deity. Would the authors of 1 Cor 12:3; 1 John 4:1–3; or 5:20 allow a deity-less gospel homologia? It seems these three considerations require that the deity of Jesus Christ be kept in the earliest gospel message.

108 This may serve as an indication of what the Jesus Seminar concluded in the exceptionally high ratings accorded to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul and Peter; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, quotations on 36–37, also 453–54, 533, 568. Similarly, the agreement from all four of the eyewitnesses in Gal 2:1–10 could be called “pink” because it was derived directly from Paul, who was present (36). The is confirmed further by Paul in 1 Cor 15:11.

109 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113.

110 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48.

111 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:118 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

112 Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 117.

113 Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 126.

114 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 10–12, 20–21, 48, 51, 140–46. See Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–58; Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 317–28; Cullmann, Early Church, 63–63, 72–73; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17, 21–23; 27–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 163–69; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 52, 56–57; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, particularly the conclusion to chapter 12, 578–83; William Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life (London: Epworth, 1970), 196–97, 225–30. Even Ehrman acknowledges that this was the early Christians’ view in Did Jesus Exist?, 310, 313.

115 See our chapter in this study on how the historicity of Jesus and his message is utterly unique in at least nine different areas as compared to the founders of the other major world religions.

116 Ehrman lists these visits by Paul to Jerusalem as one of the two most significant factors in determining the historicity of these early events. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, chap. 5, quotation on 145.

117 As will be pointed out in an upcoming chapter in this volume, this is not at all an overall argument for the deaths of all of Jesus’s apostles, which cannot be upheld. But the reports of these three deaths add to the credibility of these testimonies.

118 Intriguingly, in spite of his very robust cross-examination of the available data, Dale Allison’s strong affirmation of the resurrection appearances of Jesus is both clear and welcomed: “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death.” Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 346; also 343–44. Allison also makes some similar comments in his later 2021 volume on this topic, Resurrection of Jesus, 61–62, 86.

119 Nonetheless, in the next volume of this inquiry, alternate hypotheses will be entertained in great depth.

Excursus 2
The Early Creedal Traditions

One of the most amazing aspects of contemporary critical scholarship is the near unanimity regarding the presence of brief creedal traditions woven into a number of ancient Christian writings and located chiefly within the New Testament Epistles. Scholars agree that these creeds originated largely as oral teachings within the church due to both the development and importance of the oral culture at that time as well as the illiteracy of a vast majority of Jesus’s audiences and those who heard the early church’s messages. As such, there was a serious need to inform particularly these folks who could not read or write as to the nature of Jesus’s message, as well as that of his main followers who became the leaders after his resurrection and ascension.1

Due to the necessity of making these central messages widely available and more easily remembered, memorization facilitated reaching out through broad age and cultural divides. For reasons such as these, the early Christian creedal messages were usually brief and often cadenced. Some of them were sung.2 These brief snippets contained relevant teaching of both a theological as well as a practical nature, including key theological concepts, preaching summaries, or liturgical songs, prayers, formulas, and so forth.3

Perhaps the best known of these creedal traditions is the pre-Pauline statement in 1 Cor 15:3–7, to which Paul added his own biographical comment:

I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:3–8 NRSV)

Critical scholars generally agree concerning the location of the best-known, major examples of these traditions located in the New Testament. That is because there are several indications of the principal markers that identify these sources. One such sign is that Paul twice introduces creedal statements by stating that he had delivered (paredōka) to the Corinthians what he had also received (parelabon) himself at an earlier date (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). As New Testament scholar Marion Soards relates:

Paul’s language concerning receiving and passing on the tradition was technical vocabulary in both Greek schools and Jewish synagogue thought. Ancients understood the reception and the handing on of tradition to imply several important points. First, lines of authority were established and recognized in the transmission of tradition. Authoritative teachers instructed recognized students who in turn became authorities in their own right. Second, the transmission of tradition through selected channels of communication guaranteed the veracity of the tradition that was passed along from one person to another. Thus, in saying I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, Paul establishes both the authority and reliability of the teaching.4

The significance of Paul’s words here could hardly have been stated better or more clearly. Paul was using the most authoritative teaching practices of his day when passing on good information, as Soards argues. Paul was a Pharisee (Phil 3:4–6) and these scholars taught by passing along key traditions and other crucial data to their students. Josephus was also a Pharisee (Life 2),5 and he reported that his colleagues taught both regarding Moses’s law as well as other traditions from their forefathers (Ant. 10.6). The word that Josephus uses in his own context (paredosan) is what Paul is stating above—both of them were citing and “passing along” tradition.6

Other places in the New Testament Epistles provide additional indications of what have been termed creeds, traditions, formulas, and confessions that are being passed on to the readers.7 In another example from the same book, Paul mentions the “traditions” that he passed down to his audience at Corinth (1 Cor 11:2). Other texts employ different words but speak similarly, such as receiving or holding to the apostles’ traditions (krateite tas paradoseis, as in 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6) or holding to the reliable or believable word (tou pistou logou) and teaching sound doctrine (Titus 1:9). Several times in 1 and 2 Timothy, the audience is told that a particular saying or teaching is reliable, and on each occasion the Greek words are the same (pistos ho logos, similarly Titus 1:9). The Greek is most often followed by a pithy statement regarding the trustworthiness of the teaching (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9). First Timothy 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:11–13 provide particularly helpful examples of how these creeds appear in their contexts.

Besides the times where formal language is utilized concerning the receiving and passing along of creeds, other traditions are pronounced as being reliable or trustworthy, or readers are commanded to observe these important teachings, all of which indicate the significance of these pronouncements. Many of these early creedal statements read like the stanzas of a hymn, prayer, or other form of liturgy. Increasingly, new translations render them this way too, setting off the passages in verse style. Exceptional examples that are among the most unanimously recognized by critical scholars, seemingly ready-made for theological or liturgical use, are the following texts: Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; and 2 Tim 2:11–13. Still other passages use key words, such as “confess” (Rom 10:9), or as just seen above, mentioning a “faithful saying.”

These examples do not exhaust the identification of creeds or traditions either. Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide lists eight signs that point to the specific pre-Pauline nature of the creed in 1 Cor 15:3 and following. Several of the indicators are applicable or adaptable beyond the initial comment of passing on tradition. Other signs include vocabulary, sentence structure, diction unlike that of the author, parallelism of words and phrases, the use of the “divine passive,” and the fourfold phrase “died . . . buried . . . rose . . . appeared.” Similar examples are also apparent in other creeds.8 More specifically, Neufeld emphasizes linguistic evidence like the abundance of relative clauses and participial phrases.9

In terms of this present study, examples of key creeds recognized by critical scholars that mention Jesus’s resurrection appearances include 1 Cor 15:3–7; Luke 24:34, and Paul’s own noncreedal statement in 1 Cor 9:1. Important sermon summaries from a very early date that also address the appearances of Jesus include Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:30–32; 13:30–31; and perhaps Acts 17:31.10

Overall, it might be said that the time was precisely right for a “perfect storm” of conditions for the life of Jesus and the passing on of crucially important truths. When discussing the Gospel topics of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, very few historical considerations are more important than those of the early creedal traditions, the topic of this chapter.

Criteria for Detecting Creedal Traditions

One important question concerns how creedal traditions are actually recognized and demarcated from the remainder of the text. After all, it is more than just guessing or wishful thinking. Often in the give-and-take of scholarship, liberals and conservatives sometimes express widely separate opinions. But this is one of the most impressive strengths of this area of study since the general views here are often closer. According to some key scholars who address this important issue, most of the relevant criteria are usually held in common.11 Several other particulars could be added to the list here, though they tend to be linguistically specialized enough that we will only cite some of the relevant sources:12

(1) Sometimes the author actually states in a straightforward manner that he is passing along a tradition or more formal material, followed directly afterward by the verse itself that fulfills the conditions such as the ones mentioned here. The writer often states that these creedal traditions are trustworthy or reliable.13 On other occasions, the comment is simply made that the readers should observe the traditions that have already been imparted to them, without an actual text following.14

(2) Apart from actually delivering and passing on a self-contained piece of tradition, these creedal texts themselves are punctuated on other occasions with key terms such as delivered, confessed, or believed.15

(3) A major indication of a creed is what Stauffer calls “textual dislocations,” whereby “the context or the formula or both suffer changes.”16 On these occasions, there may occur some awkwardness in how the quoted text fits together with the author’s own prose, caused by the author being careful to reproduce the exact words of the citation. That awkwardness, sometimes not unlike a modern author trying to fit someone else’s quotation into their own publication, thus becomes a positive factor in indicating what is potentially the accurate citation of an older source. For example, scholars note or suspect a “syntactical break” between 1 Cor 15:5 and 15:6 due to the possibility of Paul having combined two creeds.17

(4) These creeds frequently use repetition, often exhibiting the same or similar wording in each of the duplicated phrases. They may also be rhythmical in nature.18

(5) The lines may be of equal or similar lengths, exhibiting parallelisms or related structural comparisons.19

(6) Many creedal traditions are very brief and pithy snippets with more than the usual amount of meaning contained in a short space.20

(7) A number of words used in some confessions are not used elsewhere in the writings of the particular author who includes the creed, which is a possible indication of the writer’s reliance on an earlier source. Jeremias notes the presence of a number of these non-Pauline terms in 1 Cor 11:23–25, but also argues for very early traditions in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper in Mark, Luke, and John.21 Regarding 1 Cor 15:3b–5, John Kloppenborg points out, “Vocabularic analysis has shown that the bulk of vv 3–5 is non-Pauline in character and certainly belongs to the tradition.”22 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor agrees with this assessment, commenting that 15:3b–5 “contain[s] a very high proportion of non-Pauline terms.”23 Specific examples are not difficult to locate.24

(8) Among other figures debating some decades ago and remaining a bit of a stalemate down to the present, Jeremias argued in much detail that particular features found especially in 1 Cor 15:3b–5 demonstrated that behind “the initial stage” of this creedal statement was an Aramaic original. Jeremias argues from the presence of seven linguistic minutiae that he thinks dictate this necessity.25 Then he concludes the matter: “There are, if not strict proofs, at any rate signs that the core of the kerygma is a translation of a Semitic original.”26 Nonetheless, it cannot be concluded in every instance that the creed has a 1:1 equivalence as it appears in Paul’s epistle due to the fact that some of the Greek terms do not have exact Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents. Thus, “it is a safe conclusion that the core of the kerygma was not formulated by Paul but comes from the Aramaic-speaking earliest community.”27 As another example, Paul’s use of the Aramaic marana tha in 1 Cor 16:22 plus the uses of this language in the Gospels at key points must be kept in mind as well.28

The chief idea here is that, as Jesus’s native language, key phrases in Aramaic were apparently remembered in vital places in the earliest church teaching. As mentioned, these include Abba or Rabbi being used during key events, like Jesus raising the dead or performing an exorcism, or following an important creedal passage, such as in 1 Cor 15:3.

(9) Foundational, elementary doctrines—most of all, early Christology and the New Testament gospel message—are emphasized in these creedal statements, as argued in the previous two chapters.29 As mentioned already, 1 Cor 15:3–7 is probably the best known of the New Testament creedal passages due to several considerations. One reason is that this text combines simply an abundance of these literary and other elements mentioned above,30 like the explicit mention of passing on tradition using traditional terms, the repeated use of kai hoti, evidence of cadence and parallelism, the presence of more than one “stanza,” the almost excessive presence of non-Pauline terms, plus the central presentation of the gospel data in all its glory, with Paul even providing the initial introductory challenge to his audience to respond with a faith commitment (15:1–2).31

Different Species of Creeds and Their Uses in the Early Church

There were different types of early Christian traditions, and the variations between them and the particular demarcations for their use were not exactly precise. There were also a number of ways that these confessions were utilized in both doctrinal as well as practical settings within early church gatherings. Such overlap explains why creedal traditions may appear in more than one venue, for they were not cordoned off for specialized use only by the apostles or other leaders for only certain situations. As illustrated by the places in which they appear in the text, they were employed variously for the furtherance of the good news being preached and taught. But in spite of all these differences, scholars generally agree on the locations and value of at least the best known of these brief messages.

According to Victor Paul Furnish, different types of creedal traditions may be identified in some detail. He denotes creeds that relate more specifically to liturgical traditions such as “hymns, prayers, benedictions, doxologies, and various eucharistic and baptismal formulas.” Furnish places 1 Cor 11:23–25 in this category. He lists 1 Cor 12:12 and Gal 3:28 as “baptismal formulations.” With many scholars, Furnish thinks that Phil 2:6–11 is a hymn and that 2 Tim 2:11–13 is “a hymn-like affirmation.” These examples of “liturgical traditions celebrate, acclaim, or invoke Jesus as the risen and living Lord, in whom the community of faith has its life and its hope.”32

Another type of creed is the more straightforward tradition, which tended to be “developed in response to a continuing need to define and defend its faith in Christ” since “controversies among Christians of different viewpoints as well as challenges from non-Christians played a role in this development.” In this category, Furnish lists creedal statements such as Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 8:6; and 15:3–5 as “particularly clear examples.”33 Liturgical as well as creedal categories are his two chief foci.

Neufeld singles out many activities in the initial church settings that actually involved creedal affirmations, along with the situations where their use was deemed to be most appropriate. He mentions baptisms, confessional or testimonial circumstances (the “personal declaration of faith”), instructing new members, hymns and worship, declaring or preaching truth, missionary endeavors, exorcisms, faithfulness in times of persecution, ethical issues, correcting doctrine or refuting false views along with other polemical interests, declaring belief in doctrine, the use of evidence, or developing Christological themes.34 Such a list clearly indicates the value of these creedal confessions and how far-reaching they were in the early church throughout these capacities.

Cullmann is more specific, carefully delineating and then explaining five well-known situations where creeds were utilized in the early church. Appearing at a time when the study of creedal traditions was still in its infancy, lists such as Cullmann’s provide some structure to this exciting new avenue of research. Cullmann’s five occasions for the use of creeds starts with (1) baptism and catechetical situations. Here he cites Acts 8:36–38 as “one of the most ancient confessions of faith which we know” while also mentioning Eph 4:5 here.35 (2) Worship, liturgy, and preaching involved hymns such as Phil 2:6–11, which Cullmann thought probably had an Aramaic original. (3) Exorcism, which Cullmann refers to as “a less frequent but very ancient use” (Acts 3:6).36 (4) Persecution, indicated by the use of 1 Tim 6:12–16 and Jesus’s good testimony before Pilate, as well as Phil 2:6–11; Rom 10:9; and 1 Cor 12:3 because Caesar and Jesus Christ cannot both be Lord.37 (5) Polemics against heretics, as represented in John 4:2; 1 Cor 8:6; and 15:3–8.38

Similar to the emphasis of the researchers above, virtually all those scholars who have done specialized work in the creedal confessions agree that these early traditions were foundational in the primary roles of apostolic preaching and teaching in the formative years when the church was doing the absolutely crucial work of defining and defending its views and appealing to converts. This gospel calling was their first and foremost goal.

Dodd makes it quite clear that the main purpose of these creedal formulations was to establish and build the ground floor by continually preaching and defending the earliest and most central message, which he thinks is found very plainly in the Acts sermon summaries listed earlier. Further, Dodd thinks that it is more than plain here that the cross currents between the Petrine and Pauline currents in these Acts messages match what is known of the teaching of each of these apostles outside of Acts.

For example, Dodd concludes on this matter, “Paul’s preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source.” Then Dodd adds more provocatively: “Anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.”39 Further, Dodd adds the crucially important comment: “A comparison, then, of the Pauline epistles with the speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certain outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles.”40

On the latter emphasis of comparing the early church messages of the chief apostles, historian Paul Barnett argues similarly by moving meticulously in tracking Jesus’s likely teachings from the gospel message.41 Then he uses the New Testament Epistles separately from the Gospels to move back around to confirm the key themes in both the Gospels and Acts,42 all the while interspersing the rabbinical examples of passing on early traditions.43 Neufeld continually makes similar moves by indicating examples of the apostolic unity in their centermost message of the gospel.44

From this point forward, this excursus will be concerned chiefly with two main topics: (1) How far back did the creedal traditions date? (2) Were these confessions reliable reports chiefly in historical terms? Or could they have been akin to ungrounded accounts that were passed around in the early church while lacking data sufficient to establish them? In the remainder of this chapter, some initial responses are addressed to these questions primarily from the standpoint of the creeds themselves. But in other chapters throughout this volume, these two issues regarding the earliness and reliability of the gospel message are treated in further detail.

How Old Were the Creedal Traditions?

That the creedal confessions were formerly oral statements written down not long afterward helps to explain the process. Two points clearly set forth the parameters succinctly and in more detail. We will be working backwards from Paul’s earliest epistles to the creeds themselves.

Most of the major New Testament creeds appear in the seven recognized Pauline Epistles,45 which indicates that these confessions date at most to no more than twenty-five to thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Even scholars such as atheist New Testament specialist Bart Ehrman call these seven texts the “un-disputed” Pauline Epistles and date them from AD 50 to 60, or at most just thirty years after the cross.46 This is quite typical for scholars across the entire New Testament spectrum. When some of the initial Pauline Epistles are dated earlier, as Luke Timothy Johnson does, then a number of these major creedal statements could have been written down a mere twenty years after the crucifixion (dated by virtually all scholars at either AD 30 or 33), with even the “latest” examples dating just a brief time afterwards.47

Thus, the creeds obviously predated these epistles, sometimes by many years, since they appeared in writing at this time. As pointed out in the previous chapter, it is widely held today by many critical scholars that a number of these traditions were most likely in existence even before Paul’s conversion or a short time later, hence just two to six years after Jesus’s death.48 Perhaps these earlier dates are well within the purview of the apostles’ lives, and one of them (Paul) was the “undisputed” author of a minimum of the seven writings that contain them. These conclusions are mainstream according to the majority of New Testament researchers, including a wide variety of atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics among these numbers. Even these latter scholars could be mistaken about the state of the evidence, since early dates do not by themselves require that these initial reports be reliable. Nevertheless, there are usually good reasons for the ensuing conclusions when even very skeptical researchers holding critical beliefs deem the data to be reliable.

That’s why balanced research proceeds by looking at more than one angle of an issue. The known dating process and its connections with the right people such as Paul along with his other early sources, nonetheless provide some additional building blocks that are helpful for moving on to the second question regarding accuracy. This could provide further hints regarding the potential reliability of the early material.

The early creedal statements that appear in these earlier Pauline writings such as 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians were all written within just twenty-five years or so (and perhaps even closer) after the historical Jesus’s crucifixion. As pointed out earlier, Ehrman holds that many of these creeds, and especially the data and teachings that stand behind them and upon which the traditions were based, were readily available even before Paul’s conversion,49 and they probably emanated from the vicinity of Jerusalem, where these events occurred in the first place. This convergence moves the already very early dates of the information standing behind the creedal traditions to the right place and a far earlier time of just about two to three years after the cross.50 Moreover, the persons from whom Paul received the most crucial pieces of this gospel testimony—whether the creeds themselves or at least the essential gospel information contained within them—were the original eyewitnesses themselves.51 So several independent gospel creedal reports or their gospel content were learned at very early dates, confirmed further by face-to-face meetings on at least two different occasions between Paul and Jesus’s two major disciples plus Jesus’s own brother. The heart of this startling information coalesces at a few absolutely crucial junctions and is seldom questioned by skeptical testimony.52

“Early High Christology” within the Creeds: Redux

In the previous chapter we addressed the recent view among a growing number of New Testament scholars regarding an exceptionally high Christology that emerged very soon after Jesus’s crucifixion. There we concentrated on a few of the chief critical researchers and their theses. Here we will consider how the initial creeds contributed further to these important early Christological considerations. That is where this discussion rejoins that topic.

So far we have centered mostly on the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus as taught in this earliest period of thought. Richard Bauckham refers to this development as “the scholarly trend known as early high Christology.”53 Do these creedal confessions indicate that the deity of Jesus Christ was clearly accepted and taught even before Paul’s conversion, years earlier than the writing of the earliest New Testament Epistles? If so, this would be a major correction to prominent views in recent decades that have taught that high Christology did not really emerge until later in the first century, perhaps about the time of John’s Gospel.54 It would also be a crucial corrective to the much older and diverse position during the religionsgeschichtliche Schule from the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the claim that Paul invented the earliest high Christology probably from Hellenistic influences.55

It would be a major shift in New Testament Christological studies if these high views are clearly found in the very earliest years after Jesus’s crucifixion, as indicated by the homologia, creedal positions, Acts sermon summaries, and the very earliest Pauline Epistles, especially when Paul affirms that these teachings did not originate with him. Scholars now generally agree that this doctrine began to emerge immediately after the crucifixion until perhaps another decade afterward.56 This shift in the contemporary landscape continues gaining popularity at present.

Our focus here will be just a brief overview of how Jesus Christ was addressed in between the early homologia and the initial Pauline Epistles just mentioned. Bauckham explains that what he has influentially titled divine identity “appropriately focuses on who God is rather than what divinity is.” He notes that “it becomes clear that, from the earliest post-Easter beginnings of Christology onward, early Christians included Jesus, precisely and unambiguously, within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.” They regarded Jesus as unique without breaking with Jewish monotheism. In this manner, Bauckham explains, “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.” As such, this position in the early church “is already a fully divine Christology, maintaining that Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the unique and eternal identity of God.” One way these changes can be observed occurs when Old Testament themes are applied to Jesus, including the attribution of worship and sharing the throne of God.57

Are these high Christological teachings indeed traceable to the earliest church? Or do they only become visible in the latter New Testament writings? In some of the earliest creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries, which critical scholars often date to the 30s, Jesus is addressed regularly and often as “Christ.”58 The same title reoccurs frequently in Paul’s earliest epistles.59 Jesus is also called the “Son of God” in both these creeds and sermon summaries,60 as is also the case in the earliest Pauline Epistles.61 Perhaps the loftiest title of all in the early church was that of “Lord.”62 Yet, it was one of the most frequently used of the early Christological titles, being applied to Jesus often in both the earliest creedal confessions as well as in Paul’s earliest epistles.63

Other early confessional indications of high Christology could also be mentioned.64 At least two creedal traditions address ontological comments concerning Jesus’s nature (Phil 2:6; Heb 1:3),65 as intimated by Bauckham.66 Closely aligned to the teachings of preexistence and sharing God’s nature in these passages are the notions that Jesus was exalted and seated at God’s right hand, being worshipped, and forgiving sin, as these themes were often given regularly and freely to Jesus in the homologia and creedal testimony. These concepts are all clearly found quite often and at very early dates in these traditions plus in Paul’s earliest epistles.

The presence of these ideas makes it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was exalted and even worshipped even in the very earliest times after the crucifixion. That Paul uses these lofty expressions so easily in his initial epistles without introductions, definitions, or further explanations of his meanings most likely indicates that they were already well-known and well received in these communities. Hurtado employs terms like celebration, reverence, and devotional for the circumstances indicated by this “early Christian worship.” One result is “the singing of Christological songs/hymns” in the earliest church.67

How can all of these ideas and concepts, especially when taken together, not clearly express the truth that the earliest church taught a very high Christology? Perhaps the most accomplished expert on Christology at the close of the twentieth century, Martin Hengel, attests that in his opinion the earliest Christology grew more in the initial two decades of the church until Paul’s earliest epistles than it did over the ensuing seven centuries!68 We saw Bauckham’s conclusion above that “the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.”69 This seems to be justified.

Are the Creedal Traditions Reliable?

In the previous two chapters we carefully detailed much evidence for the eyewitness quality and early nature of the resurrection appearances respectively. Continuing to argue throughout this present excursus, it should be further evident why critical scholars are generally convinced that many New Testament creedal traditions are exceptionally early.

An illustration of the strength of these affirmations is provided by a brief study of the findings according to the very critical Jesus Seminar. After producing the research results of their study of the relevant historical details regarding the creedal text in 1 Cor 15:3–8, the Seminar concluded: “Most Fellows [their members] think the components of the list reported there were formed before Paul’s conversion, which is usually dated around 33 C.E.”70 That this group agreed that at least the “components” of this creedal affirmation actually predated Paul’s transformation is simply amazing. Accordingly, this pre-Pauline message was clearly not Paul’s, and it lists some of the experiences of the original apostles themselves.

The Jesus Seminar awarded the highest historical rating for Paul’s appearance and the second highest for Peter’s.71 At least Mary Magdalene among the women also experienced an appearance of the risen Jesus, though no color ranking was assigned in her case.72 The remaining “alleged” appearances to both individuals and to groups are also listed.73

To be clear, the Seminar, at least as a group, did not decide that these appearances happened as depicted, at least as described in the Gospels.74 It is often specified that these occurrences did not involve Jesus’s corpse (which, it is claimed, probably decayed normally), that the events could not have been photographed, and that they did not happen on the first Easter Sunday, and so on.75 Perhaps most suggestive is that the appearances to Paul, Peter, and Mary are referred to as a “visionary religious experience,” implying that these events were possibly subjective in nature. However, it is difficult to be sure, and individual Seminar Fellows have occasionally used language that could be shaded differently.76 But with such a large group of researchers, more than one position was probably held.

To be sure, the scholarly opinions of the Jesus Seminar or any other individual or group do not validate the reliability of the creedal traditions or any other historical inquiries. One’s views on a subject do not prove a factual thesis to be either true or false. But as remarked, these conclusions were based on the prior research reported in this volume. When a group’s published presuppositions seem to place it at strong odds with several potential areas that support the creedal traditions, yet that same group’s verdicts also support these traditions in some crucial ways, that might be enough to make researchers step back and ascertain if the underlying data really do warrant these conclusions. Therefore, since the Jesus Seminar found that parts or even all of the creedal statement in 1 Cor 15:3–7 were in existence before Paul’s conversion in the early 30s and hence were pre-Pauline, that alone should at least be crucial and inspire further research. Moreover, when combined with many other skeptical voices, that the Seminar judged that the appearances to Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene were either almost certainly reliable or probably reliable is also exceptionally striking. These are vital indications that there may be more information and evidence to study on this subject.

It has been the chief contention in this excursus, along with the more specific minimal facts chapters here, that a study of this nature will indicate that either the creedal traditions themselves or just their “components” (as the Jesus Seminar termed them)77 will indicate a strong foundation for the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, no matter whether it is the creeds or their previous content, these reports are exceptionally early and are almost certainly traceable to the original eyewitness testimony that lies behind them. This latter conclusion is due especially to Paul and the other apostles whom Paul interviewed in two different trips to Jerusalem, as mentioned in Gal 1:18–2:10, plus Paul’s summary of the apostolic confirmation of the resurrection appearances in 1 Cor 15:11.

On this last subject, Bart Ehrman reminds his readers that even more material than what we have discussed here was available and predated Paul’s conversion. Further, Ehrman thinks it is quite likely that most or even all of the creedal traditions cited by Paul originated in Jerusalem, many of them in the 30s, and that some of this crucial information could have come from the apostolic eyewitnesses that Paul interviewed when he visited Jerusalem not long after his conversion.78

In fact, Paul’s two trips to interview and discuss the nature of the gospel message with the three most influential apostles in the early church is probably the single most essential portion of the issue concerning the reliability of these creedal traditions. Of course Paul knew about his own experience of an appearance of Christ, but when added to the eyewitness reports he received in these discussions of the gospel, involving appearances to both individuals as well as groups of people, these investigations built the foundation as to why the creedal proclamations of the resurrection appearances stand on such solid historical ground. It can be known that these appearances were discussed here and elsewhere because of the 1 Cor 15:3 tradition itself as well as Paul’s comment in 15:11. Paul’s discussions here are what argue so loudly that these early creedal reports were neither fantasy, myth, nor “group speak”—they were traceable to those who actually had the experiences. Further, at least three of these four apostles died for these beliefs according to first-century sources. Items such as these are why Ehrman treats these testimonies so seriously.

The Central Idea

As many commentators have noted, the central overall focus of the majority of creedal traditions is that of Christology.79 Within that focus, there is also widespread critical recognition that the narrower concentration was on the early Christian beliefs in the exaltation, worship, and lordship of Jesus Christ, along with his death and resurrection in particular.80 Neufeld and others have specified that the connotations communicated in these teachings were that the bearers of this truth were the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves.81 Cullmann points out concerning “the very earliest confessions” that “the bulk of them will lead us back into apostolic times.”82 As just seen, Ehrman even thinks that the earlier apostles could well have passed on these creedal traditions to Paul after his conversion.83

It must be remembered once again that there is a major distinction to be kept in mind at this point. While there were similarities, the creedal traditions themselves were not necessarily synonymous with the earliest form of the gospel message. Rather, the homologia was the “agreement or consensus in which the Christian community was united, that core of essential conviction and belief to which Christians subscribed and openly testified. . . . The homologia was the confession of Jesus with specific reference to his person or work.” It was from the beginning the substance of what was declared, expressed, preached, and used in dialogue with unbelievers. It referred chiefly to the content of the confessing rather than to the actual proclamation itself.84 Thus, “the essentials of the gospel which the church proclaimed were closely related to the homologia to which the Christian community adhered.” For Neufeld, the content of the homologia is “‘Jesus is Lord’ and the belief that ‘God raised him from the dead.’”85

That the earliest apostles agreed on this central content in their preaching and teaching on the gospel essentials is apparent on more than one level. For example, no less than four times in the brief creedal tradition(s) in 1 Cor 15:3–7 alone, appearances to the original apostolic witnesses are cited. This includes single appearances to Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, plus group appearances to “the twelve” (tois dōkeka) as well as to “all the apostles” (tois apostolois pasin). Only the appearance to more than 500 persons at one time in 15:6 does not directly refer to or specify an apostolic eyewitness testimony regarding those who were closest to Jesus, although one or more apostles were probably in that crowd. The point here is that one or more apostles could well have been involved in every one of the cited appearances in this text. Then when Paul attaches his own appearance to the end of the list from just a slightly later time, this also concerned another apostolic witness.86

Pertaining further to the appearance of the risen Jesus to over 500 persons at once, it was just mentioned that one or more of the apostles could very plausibly have been present in that group. Moreover, such attendance could also have been the case with the female witnesses to Jesus’s ministry or Jesus’s own family members, just as representatives of these groups were also present in the smaller gathering in Acts 1:12–14. Whatever the conclusion on that point, probably a majority opinion among commentators would be that the statement that most of these 500 witnesses were still alive was most likely meant to enlist them as further available witnesses to that appearance. As New Testament scholar Richard Hays comments, the point was “clearly calculated to provide further evidential support for the resurrection of Jesus; anyone who is disposed to be skeptical will find a formidable gallery of witnesses waiting to testify that they had seen him alive.”87 Again, that Paul attached his own appearance to the list in 1 Cor 15:8 also concerned the support of yet another apostolic witness.

From start to finish, then, this entire creedal statement incorporated the apostolic eyewitnesses along with other firsthand observers of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. From the outset, the notion of the original witnesses to the resurrection appearances of Jesus was at the very center of the emphasis.88

Again, it is no coincidence that immediately after including this apostolic creedal material, appending his own appearance to the end of the list, and then discussing the other apostles in 15:8–10, Paul adds immediately in 15:11 that the others were proclaiming this same message that he was also teaching regarding Jesus’s resurrection appearances. This was absolutely crucial for Paul, in that the apostles were all on the same page.

This specific point of apostolic agreement is in view in 15:11, as indicated both by its following directly the list of resurrection appearances in the earlier report, plus its connection to the subsequent verses (especially 15:14–15), where “we” and “our” refer several times to the other apostles and Paul together as one, being either true or false witnesses depending on whether they had incorrectly preached and taught Jesus’s resurrection. Tying the passage together is the use of the Greek verb kērussō (“proclaimed”) in verses 11, 12, and 14. The apostles stood together in their resurrection proclamation in that they were the primary witnesses (emarturēsamen) of this truth. As Soards sums it up: “Paul reminds the Corinthians that no matter from whom they heard the gospel, the message that they had heard was the one he had briefly reiterated in verses 3–8. . . . This message about God’s work in Jesus Christ united and held together the entire work of the early church.”89

Paul traveled to Jerusalem just five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion to interview Peter and also James (Gal 1:18–20). Paul returned to the city some fourteen years later to discuss the gospel message he had been preaching to ascertain if the other apostles there agreed with him (2:2).90 Peter, James, and John added nothing to his gospel message (2:6) and confirmed that stance by extending “the right hand of fellowship” to Paul and Barnabas (2:9).

Many critical New Testament scholars have argued that Acts 15:1–35 parallels the account in Gal 2:1–10 and is the same event, though others have questioned whether these passages depict the same occasion.91 Whichever is the best option here, it is worth noting that on the view that these are two depictions of the same occasion, this would provide a second independent source that confirms Paul’s account in Gal 2:1–10. On the view that these were different events, then this would constitute a third major source that similarly approves Paul’s core gospel message by the Jerusalem apostles such as Peter (15:7–11) and James (15:13–21). The conclusion to the matter was that this meeting produced unanimous agreement (genomenois homothumadon)92 between the Jerusalem apostles, Paul, and Barnabas regarding the gospel message (15:25; see also 15:28). That the final outcome was greeted with rejoicing in Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas had been preaching (15:31), was a further indication of this apostolic recognition and agreement.

Therefore, most critical scholars acknowledge that the Jerusalem apostles did indeed agree with Paul regarding the nature of the gospel message, which was the foundation upon which a faith commitment was based. From texts such as 1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10; and Acts 15:1–35, as well as other insights, this recognition is warranted. Hengel states that the creedal proclamation in 1 Cor 15:3 and following was the common basis against which the meeting described in Gal 2:1–10 can be understood best: “In terms of content it was the foundation of that ‘gospel’ which Paul proclaimed.” On these vital matters all of the apostles were in agreement.93

A similar sentiment is not difficult to find among major critical researchers. Luke Timothy Johnson points out that there are historical facts here that even “the most critical historian can affirm without hesitation. Can anyone doubt, for example . . . a meeting between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership concerning the legitimacy of the gentile mission?”94 Regarding Paul’s recognition by the other apostles, Howard Clark Kee affirms that “the disciples . . . accepted him [Paul] as being called to apostleship by the risen Christ, just as they had been.”95 Summarizing his comments on Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem, Hans Dieter Betz notes, “The positive result consists of the fact that his gospel and mission were officially acknowledged by the Jerusalem apostles,”96 adding that this resulted in “a recognition of Paul and his gospel as theologically valid.”97 Most other critical scholars across a wide perspectival spectrum attest to this apostolic agreement.98

Of somewhat lesser specific impact but still worth noting is that a number of the early creedal confessions are introduced by authors such as Paul who make comments that what follows is a reliable or trustworthy tradition that ought to be believed, applied, followed, and/or used in opposing those who hold contrary beliefs.99 More generally, the New Testament authors also note regularly the truth, assurance, and solemnity of their teachings.100

It might be easy enough for some to question such comments as just window dressing, the sort of thing that might be said in an apocryphal or nonhistorical writing that seeks to claim apostolic authorship or greater authority for an anonymous author. However, we are not speaking here of writings that are without some provenance or which include questionable genres. For example, several of both types of comments above are drawn from Paul’s “authentic” epistles. Further, a few of the remarks likewise need to be evaluated against the historical contexts that we have just emphasized, since they occur in 1 Cor 15:11–15; Gal 1:18–2:10; and so on. In other words, some statements come from contexts that credibly present historical scenarios, so we should take seriously the encouragement that the material is reliable and ought to be applied. Some critical scholars too often slant conclusions away from more positive historical conclusions. But when the contexts already favor precisely that reliable emphasis, why should some of these remarks be ignored? At the very least, the authors took these traditions to be trustworthy.

Not to develop an overly nearsighted view of these confessional creedal reports, but it is the case that early Christology was at the heart of the New Testament teaching and that the gospel message was the centermost emphasis within that realm. True, other topics were also addressed in the early confessions.101 But beginning with the creedal traditions in the early 30s and moving ahead to the first epistles just twenty to twenty-five years later, this interval is amazingly brief and a number of historical considerations have impressed the majority of critical researchers. Many of these scholarly insights have been addressed in this chapter, and a number of surprising if not truly amazing results have emerged from this creedal research, as many have pointed out. Few recent research trends have turned the direction (and some heads!) in critical circles more than our topic here.102 As historian Paul Barnett sums up a number of these matters rather strikingly, the cumulative result is that “in terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.”103

The Significance of the Creedal Traditions

Several key considerations place these creeds in the forefront of discussions regarding both the content and reliability of the earliest Christian teachings, most of all regarding the gospel message and especially the resurrection appearances of Jesus. A few reflections will be mentioned here briefly.

(1) The historical facts indicate that many of the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, along with additional factors, emerged quite early and even exceptionally so. A great many details were presented in the previous chapter on minimal fact 3 regarding the early date of this material beginning with the demarcation of the initial layers of tradition. Regarding the exceptionally early date, it should be noted that the most primitive levels of this material presented in that chapter began with the earliest gospel theme of all—the disciples’ experiences expressed in the homologia. This message consisted of the immediate apostolic teaching and preaching of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus and is multiply attested by many early sources.

The next tiers of tradition move in this order: the very earliest creedal traditions that most likely preceded Paul’s conversion or occurred shortly afterwards (what we termed the “pre-Pauline 1 creeds”); Paul’s conversion experience; and his initial trip to Jerusalem to dialogue about the gospel with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. Each of these layers is dated even by critical scholars as having occurred from immediately after the crucifixion up until Paul’s initial visit to Jerusalem, which is a maximum of only five to six years later!

Other evidence is listed in that chapter as well as above. The majority of these layers predate the writing of Paul’s initial tier of authentic epistles usually dated to AD 50, precisely since the chief traditions appear in those works! This places these core traditions sometime in the initial twenty-five years after Jesus’s crucifixion, just twenty-five years or so later at a maximum, with the majority scholarly view being that much of this material existed within the first five to six years. For some of the earliest facts here, it should be noted carefully, yet again, that it is the original message itself that is the most crucial component here, not necessarily the precise date of the creeds. These earliest tiers are exceptionally early by any standards! As atheist biblical scholar Gerd Lüdemann even declares strongly, “I do insist, however, that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional formulations is one of the great achievements of recent New Testament scholarship.”104

One indication concerning the weight of these data is provided by the evaluations of perhaps even the majority of atheist commentators, self-identified non-Christian scholars, agnostics, and other skeptical specialists,105 who have still agreed with various positive comments involved in these assessments, especially regarding the early dates. In many or even most of these cases, more ground is conceded by these critical researchers than has been mentioned above, as even a brief survey will indicate.106

Atheist New Testament specialist Bart Ehrman asserts, “The idea that Christians were telling stories of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection . . . before Paul is held by virtually all scholars of the New Testament, and for compelling reasons.” Paul learned of these accounts “soon after he converted in 32–33 CE.”107 Furthermore, agreeing with other fellow skeptics, Ehrman similarly considers it likely that when Paul vi-sited Jerusalem at no more than five to six years after the crucifixion and shared with Peter and James, he “learned all the received traditions that he refers to and even the received traditions that we otherwise suspect are in his writings that he does not name as such.”108 This remarkable summarization sets the stage for the exceptionally early collecting and imparting of the central gospel proclamation from those who witnessed it and knew it best.

Besides the better-known creedal traditions, Ehrman likewise holds that many of these Acts sermon summaries also date back to the early 30s, probably closer to one or two years after the crucifixion.109 John Drane even comments, “The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles.”110 A long list of critical scholars who attest to many of these same details is not difficult to assemble.111

(2) So even skeptical scholars acknowledge that the earliest teaching of Jesus’s death and resurrection occurred quite soon after the events themselves. These actual reports can be dated to just the first few years after the events. But in addition to being early, these events were reported from the testimonies of the most authoritative eyewitnesses, namely, Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John (especially as seen in the critically accepted texts in Gal 1:18–2:10 and 1 Cor 15:11). Regarding Paul’s description in Gal 1:18, Cullmann speaks for many scholars when he remarks, “It is more than likely that [Paul’s] object was to receive tradition from [Cephas].”112 Other early canonical writings have also contributed additional information. On the centermost, cardinal doctrines, these mega-apostles agreed—none of them are ever declared to have broken fellowship with one of the others on any of these doctrines.113

The apostles were almost surely the sources for at least some of the creeds.114 At the very least their teachings focusing on the very same content are found in the major passages of the Pauline and other Epistles. So it is virtually uncontested that the centermost, core information of the gospel facts—at a very minimum the reports of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus—goes back to the apostles themselves in some form or another. Their teachings are surely manifest in the form of the homologia plus the earliest creedal traditions, then later in the earliest epistles. This will be unpacked further below as well as in the chapters on the individual minimal facts. But the key here is that while these creeds and Acts sermon summaries at least reflect these doctrines, the Epistles state these truths in longer, more detailed exposition, all from immediately after the crucifixion and shortly afterwards.115

Many of the reasons for this scholarly recognition and acceptance were pursued in much detail in our chapter on the disciples’ original experiences of the risen Jesus, where many major and subsidiary arguments were presented. The chief source in these matters is the apostle Paul, and his major contribution was arguably to interview the other key apostolic eyewitnesses—namely, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John—pertaining to their own testimony of the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus. The result was Paul’s personal corroboration that each of these apostles were on precisely the same page regarding the central gospel message (1 Cor 15:11–15), as in the passages just listed above. Beyond Paul’s attestation alone, the total count of confirming arguments that favor these sources of information is almost overwhelming in its variety, scope, and overall force.

As just indicated, the chapter on the disciples’ experiences will detail and verify these findings. The overall argument indicates the high likelihood that the traditional texts along with additional sources are variously either apostolic in nature or are sufficiently close to this apostolic testimony to be both reliable and authoritative. In short, the main issue involves the homologia itself, the most central, agreed upon essence or foundation of the earliest church message. As many scholars have noted, the essentials of this early preaching and teaching chiefly accented the dominant characteristics of the earliest Christology. The paramount beliefs and events that were featured above all were the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.116 Here it will only be remarked further that these beliefs and events were at the very center of the homologia, the early creedal traditions,117 plus the Acts sermon summaries.118 This was the earliest gospel taught by the apostles.

The study of the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries particularly during the past few decades has helped immensely in providing a narrow window that supplies data regarding the early and eyewitness claims made in the early church and chiefly by the apostles themselves. In so doing, an evidential foundation has been further augmented and deepened as a closer path has been cleared back to Jesus himself.

(3) A broader, “big picture” benefit has also been supplied by the creeds and sermon summaries. These usually brief snippets of information help immeasurably in elucidating the beginnings of Christendom, especially in regard to early beliefs but also concerning more practical and pastoral considerations as well. Most provocatively, these sources may be viewed as the answer to the question pertaining to the direction Christian preaching and teaching took in the initial years after the crucifixion and before the writing of the initial New Testament works. In other words, these invaluable nuggets serve as windows into the very earliest church, filling the gap considerably during the first twenty years until the appearance of the first canonical book, which was probably 1 Thessalonians.119 Thus, these creeds served as the initial expressions of Christianity while it was still in its infancy, including not only its theology but also more practical applications such as preaching and teaching.

This window into the very earliest church also brought other vital theological items to light. As will be pursued in more detail later in this chapter and elsewhere throughout this study, one of these foremost teachings is the impetus that many of these better-known creeds teach an early “high Christology.” Far from taking decades for this view to develop and understand, as many theologians have postulated in recent times, these doctrines came to light immediately, as has been asserted by a growing number of the top New Testament theologians today.

Moreover, the creedal texts and sermon summaries also make clear several more practical matters, such as Jesus presenting himself as the actual road to salvation. Theologians across the theological spectrum have acknowledged that central to Jesus’s message was the call to salvation in God’s kingdom, which comes from choosing Jesus and his path. Jesus required that a decision be made for admittance to the kingdom and for participation in the joy and blessing of eternal life. The creedal traditions and sermon summaries were employed along with their immediate contexts to call the readers and listeners to such decision-making and to follow Jesus.120

Jesus additionally called his followers to what is often referred to as radical obedience or the price of total commitment. Intriguingly, however the instructions are actually applied in today’s world, theologians and New Testament scholars across the liberal-conservative spectrum agree that such a call was definitely made by Jesus, inviting participative action from his hearers. This message will also be unpacked later in this study, but as Lüdemann asserts, Jesus “issued a radical call to discipleship.”121 Stephen Neill makes this comparison regarding Jesus’s teachings: “The demands he [Jesus] makes on his followers are more searching than those put forward by any other religious teacher.”122 Even a brief survey of contemporary scholars across a large range of critical territory who agree here will indicate the widespread unanimity regarding the available data and the nature of the New Testament sacrificial call that was required.123

(4) Lastly, the very nature of creedal traditions and sermon summaries is to assert the truth of Christianity, spread the word, and utilize this truth to proclaim the core message that we have mentioned. This is clearly the motive in both the creeds and the sermon summaries themselves, as well as in the commentary based on them.124

Conclusion

So what conclusions do critical scholars generally draw regarding these issues? Earlier we reproduced the surprising statement by atheist New Testament specialist Gerd Lüdemann, who remarked that the pre-Pauline traditional formulations were one of the greatest advancements of recent scholarly reseach.125 Another atheist scholar, Bart Ehrman, actually dates many of the creedal reports and Acts sermon summaries to the early 30s and acknowledges that Paul may have received them directly from those who were apostles before him. He comments that Paul’s visit with Peter and James in Jerusalem “is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions. . . . The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”126

German theologian Walter Kasper thinks that a date of AD 30 is certainly possible for the origination of the confession in 1 Cor 15:3–5.127 Dunn dates the creedal portion of this passage to within just months of Jesus’s crucifixion!128 Hurtado agrees with the truth of Jesus’s resurrection appearances as well as the exceptionally early dates for the subsequent proclamation of these events.129

Bauckham states specifically that creedal formula such as the ones in 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3 and following plus several specific Acts sermon summaries were received from the Jerusalem apostles.130 Cullmann holds that the creedal traditions go back at least to the earliest times and may well have been formulated by the apostles themselves.131 Dodd agrees that these traditions were based on the teachings of the apostles.132 Kee goes further in pointing out that Paul’s personal testimony in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, along with texts like 1 Cor 11:23, could be tested in a law court!133

Many researchers would agree with Lüdemann’s remark in that few topics of study during the last few decades have produced more exciting or promising data than that of the creedal traditions. Heading the list of positives to be drawn from such a study are two facts. First, a number of these confessions are clearly very early, even existing from before Paul’s conversion some two or three years after the crucifixion of Jesus until his initial trip to Jerusalem.134 But second, there is plenty of evidence that indicates the apostles themselves were behind these early oral proclamations, as just mentioned. Several researchers have even concluded that the overall tenor of the views above is the consensus New Testament position at the present time. John Kloppenborg asserts that many of these views are “almost universally acknowledged” among critical scholars.135 That combination of early plus eyewitnesses is an exceptionally strong link in establishing the facticity of the resurrection data.136

Along with the other two overall topics regarding the application of the New Testament historical criteria (particularly the multiple attestation of independent sources) to the text as well as the likelihood that the Gospel genre was more or less modeled after Greco-Roman biographies (bioi), these early creedal traditions are the very bedrock of the data that must be pursued as we push on to evidential questions regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Few items in these discussions are better attested or are more crucial in our ongoing studies. For instance, this material provides the final answer to questions regarding why the creedal confessions could not be simply myths, legends, group speak, or the like, for they are grounded in the historical data. No wonder these events are the foundation for the disciples’ transformations, which is to be discussed in the next chapter.

Notes

1 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 10–13, 18 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 313–15 in particular, emphasizing nn. 277–89 for several views (see chap. 1, n. 3), such as the 10 percent literacy across the Roman Empire to perhaps only 3 percent literacy in Roman Palestine (n. 277). However, some major specialists such as Richard Horsley and Rainer Riesner provide reasons for somewhat higher estimates among Jews and in the Nazareth of Jesus’s day (nn. 278–80).

2 Of course, by way of analogy, this is still practiced today even with preschoolers in our contemporary culture where orality is not as crucial. Secular examples might be little song lyrics such as “Row, row, row your boat” or “Mary had a little lamb.” A religious example for preschoolers could well be represented by the lyrics, “Jesus loves me, this I know.” Well-known religious verses or prayers might be “God is great, God is good” or “Now I lay me down to sleep.” Not to be missed is that beginning theological truths are present here; Jesus loves us, God is both great and good, God can welcome us into eternity at death, and the Bible is the key book. Practical truths are also apparent, like directing praise to God and thanking God for food.

3 The earliest and most detailed of the scholarly critical texts on the nature of these early traditions actually extend back into the years when Bultmann’s ideas dominated New Testament theology and even well before that. For some of these works, see Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22); cf. also Cullmann’s detailed essay “The Tradition”—combined from Scottish Journal of Theology and the Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses in 1950—published in Cullmann’s volume of essays, Early Church, 55–99 (see chap. 11, n. 14); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (chap. 2, n. 22); Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 8, n. 70). Also very helpful in this regard is the study from Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts (see chap. 9, n. 12).

4 Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 239.

5 Life 2. Translation can be found in Flavius Josephus, Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960).

6 Cf. also Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 269–70 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

7 Though there can be slightly different meanings or emphases in these words, the terms are cited quite similarly and almost interchangeably in the New Testament. J. N. D. Kelly also employs these expressions, though he cautions against using the strictest definitions of these words, in that while the underlying truths were employed and taught in the New Testament, these expressions were in the process of being crystallized in patterns but without being formally hardened yet. See Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2014), 23–24.

8 Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98–99 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

9 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12.

10 The additional verses in these texts that simply record that Jesus was “raised” are not included here. According to the majority of critical researchers, what are being termed as the Acts sermon summaries are smaller units within the Acts sermons where scholars hold that the word and sentence structure are more pointedly creedal in nature. Specifically on these snippets from the Acts discourses, see especially Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, particularly 79–80, 165–69, 171, 177. Less applicable to the more specific discussion here but still mentioning subjects that bear on this discussion is Marion L. Soards’s work, Speeches in Acts, such as 188, 200 (see chap. 10, n. 13). One of the few New Testament scholars who takes a more critical stance here is Gerd Lüdemann, yet even he allows for the presence of early traditions and numerous historical facts in a number of these Acts sermons as well as elsewhere throughout Acts. See Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 7–8, 12–14, 31, 35–37, 48–49, 54, 59, 63, 77, 133, 157–58, 165, 186, 192–95, 246, 249–50. Lüdemann also makes a number of positive comments regarding the resurrection appearances (28–30, 46, 48–49, 133), particularly regarding Paul’s encounter on the trip to Damascus (106–16, 239–40, 255–56). For other information that is relevant here as well as in the next chapter, see also Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 6–29; Donald Fairbairn and Ryan M. Reeves, The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 21–26, particularly 25–26.

11 Some of the major scholars who treat these matters by producing lists of criteria that distinguish these confessional passages from their contexts include Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology, trans. John Marsh (London: SCM, 1955), 338–39; Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Anchor Bible Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 6–10; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 6–26, esp. 10–11, 15–16 (see chap. 11, n. 14) along with the author’s excellent bibliography on the subject; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12, 42–44, 47, 50, 129–30; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 26–31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20n1, though Cullmann thinks Stauffer’s approach above is “in rather too rigid a form.”

12 For details in these more specialized areas that require being able to move easily between ancient languages, especially when the result is drawn from portions that are “notoriously rough and ungrammatical, and indeed scarcely translatable,” to specifications within these languages such as the use of syntactical criteria, double accusatives, infinitives that introduce ancient quotations and so on, see Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–21, 26–28, quotation on 27; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 58–68, 112–54, 171; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 11, 15–16; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12, 42; Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339; Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 7–8.

13 Such as 1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–7; 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9–10; 2 Tim 2:11–13.

14 Like 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Titus 1:9; cf. Mark 7:3.

15 These include a major text such as Rom 10:9 (featuring “faith,” “confess,” “believe” all in the same context), as well as 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:21; and probably 1 Tim 6:13b.

16 Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339. Stauffer’s example here is 1 Tim 3:16.

17 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 101 (see chap. 11, n. 37). Reginald H. Fuller comments that “perhaps the majority of German scholars in recent times” have taken this option regarding two lists of appearances. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 11–13, 27–28 (see chap. 10, n. 23). Bart D. Ehrman also states regarding 1 Cor 15:3–7, “This ancient creed is a neatly balanced, poetical statement, with two halves. In both halves it makes a claim about Christ (he died; he was raised) . . . and then offers an empirical proof: that he died is proved by the fact that he was buried; that he was raised is proved by the fact that he appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the twelve (apostles).” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 249–51, quotation on 249 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

18 Rom 4:25; 5:8; 8:11, 34; 14:8–9; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:14; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; Eph 1:20; 1 Tim 2:5–6; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18 are all helpful here. Lapide’s example is the threefold “and that” (kai hoti) structure in 1 Cor 15:3–5, which he identifies as an “Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew way of narration.” See Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 14, counts this as a fourfold hoti.

19 Examples pertaining to both features 4 and 5 can be found in 1 Tim 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:11–13. Another major instance of the fifth creedal indication is Phil 2:6–11. The parallelism in 1 Cor 15:3–7 is noted by Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 12; and Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98, among many others. Pinchas Lapide mentions there being “three individual statements” within the creed (98), while Fuller (27–28) notes two or three lists of witnesses.

20 Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 7, also citing 1 Tim 3:16, to which many other confessions could be added, such as Rom 4:25; 5:8; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Pet 3:18. The Acts sermon summaries are frequently longer, as are 1 Cor 15:3–7; Phil 2:5–11; Col 1:15–20.

21 See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 96–104, for a number of these same or similar linguistic items in the text of the Last Supper. Jeremias argues that the three Last Supper Gospel passages in Mark, Luke, and John, plus the pre-Pauline text in 1 Cor 11:23–25, are each independent, and that (like 1 Cor 15:3b–5) there are non-Pauline terms present in Paul’s text (99–100, 104) as well as a potential Semitic substrata in the introduction to the creed in 1 Cor 11:23–25 (101, 104). Jeremias also notes the independent Last Supper tradition in Luke 22:14–20, and additionally comments that the antiquity of Mark 14:22–24 “approaches that of the early kerygma in I Cor. 15.3b–5” (100). This is rather stunning, and these comments potentially shed some exciting research light on the exceptionally early nature of these traditions.

22 Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351 (see chap. 10, n. 146).

23 Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582 (see chap. 11, n. 44).

24 There is much data on this point alone, with many researchers providing contributions on the use of various terms or phrases within creedal passages where there is a contrast between the creed itself and the language of the author who cites these texts. Again, the rich tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 is usually the chief target. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 199n1, points out that “the first clear recognition of the non-Pauline words” in this context can be drawn from Reinhold Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Germany: Diechert, 1903; repr. Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 63. Many scholars follow the research of Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, cited above, with Fuller noting the following non-Pauline phrases in particular: “for our sins” (huper tōn hamartiōn hēmōn), “he was raised” (egēgertai), “on the third day” (tē hēmerā tē tritē), and “the Twelve” (dōdeka). Concerning the first phrase, “for our sins,” Jeremias explains that sin is used sixty-four times in the Pauline Epistles. Of the six places that sin is used in the plural, none are specifically Pauline (101–2). Beyond Fuller’s summary of Jeremias, another phrase used in this context, “according to the Scriptures,” is never used by Paul at all (102). Further, the term egēgertai appears in Paul only in referring to its use here. Likewise, the phrase tē hēmerā tē trite also appears nowhere else in Paul. For these and other examples from this particular pre-Pauline creed, see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102. Other relevant comments are made by Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” in The Beginning of the Gospel: Problems in Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 123–24; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351n1; Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582n1.

25 Jeremias’s seven key linguistic pointers to an Aramaic original are (1) the parallelisms noted above; (2) the absence of participles other than kai; (3) the independence of this creed from the Old Testament LXX reading, which are all helpful; (4) “the adversative kai at the beginning of the third line”; (5) the use of the number following the noun (“on the third day,” tē hēmerā tē tritē ), which is the “only possible order” in a Semitic language; (6) the use of the Greek term ōphthē is more consistent with the appropriate Hebrew and Aramaic usage; and (7) the Aramaic Kēphāi (Peter) with a passive verb is also a Semitism. See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102–3. Dodd has famously argued for Aramaic originals for some of the Acts sermon summaries as well, most notably Acts 10:35–38; see Apostolic Preaching, esp. 19–21, 26–28.

26 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102, cf. also 95–96, 103.

27 Jeremias, 103. After discussing the debate, Fuller basically agrees with this last assessment with some slight variation and critique; see Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10–11. Jeremias’s best-known opponent on these matters was another New Testament scholar, Hans Conzelmann, who besides agreeing that some words in this pre-Pauline tradition, like “according to the Scriptures,” have “no exact Aramaic equivalent” also made the point that “Christ” used as it is here is not impossible in Aramaic but it is “unusual.” Conzelmann concludes that since the present form of this material is Greek, it is better just to deal with the text as it is presently. Conzelmann, First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 252–54. Philipp Vielhauer also made the last point regarding the difficulty in translating the title “Christ” into an original Semitic form. See Vielhauer, “Ein Weg zur ntl. Christologie,” Evangelische Theologie 25 (1965): 57–58.

28 As in Jesus’s use of abba when referrring to his Father (Mark 14:36), raising Jairus’s daughter from the dead and employing the Aramaic terms Talitha koum (“Little girl, I say to you arise”) in Mark 5:41–42, or with regard to healings that either utilize or imply the Aramaic, as with Jesus’s word Ephphatha (“Be opened”) to the deaf man in Mark 7:34; 8:24; 10:46, and the term Rabbi in Mark 10:51.

29 Neufeld argues quite persuasively that the creeds centered on Christology, particularly on the facts of the gospel message that we have mentioned above in Earliest Christian Confessions, 10–12, 20–21, 42–60, 131–32, 140–46. Dodd argues similarly in Apostolic Preaching, 16–31. Longenecker provides a very helpful summary of the Christological titles “Christ,” “Son of God,” and “Lord” among these early confessions in New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 21–23. Many other scholars across the entire theological range of liberal to conservative views have weighed in, basically agreeing on the outlined message that is repeatedly taught in the factual portion of the New Testament gospel essentials, as presented in the creedal traditions. Some of these researchers include Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 14 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Betz, Galatians, 72 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 413 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 468–69 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 270, 319, 380–81 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 359, 365; Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8–10 (see excursus 1, n. 96); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 99; Barnabas Lindars, “Jesus Risen: Bodily Resurrection but No Empty Tomb,” Theology 59 (1986): 90–96; Johnson, Living Jesus, 34, 77 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Perkins, “Reconciling the Resurrection,” 202, 204 (see excursus 1, n. 44); Fergus Kerr, “Paul’s Experience: Sighting or Theophany?,” New Blackfriars 58 (1977): 308; Hugo Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317, 318 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 8, 185–86 (see chap. 1, n. 23); Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 44–45 (see excursus 1, n. 94); Gerald O’Collins, “Peter as Easter Witness,” Heythrop Journal 22 (1981): 15–16; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 95–96 (see chap. 1, n. 19); David M. Stanley, “‘To Know Him and the Power of His Resurrection’ (Phil 3:10): The New Testament Witness to the Central Mystery of Faith,” in How Could We Sorrow?, ed. Michael Higgins (Waterloo: University of St. Jerome’s Press, 1989), 317.

30 Regarding this passage in 1 Cor 15:3–7, Lapide lists many “linguistic items” in this passage alone that indicate its ancient pre-Pauline pedigree: (1) the clearly non-Pauline vocabulary, sentence structure, and diction; (2) the parallelism created by three separate statements; (3) the threefold “and that” sequence “that characterizes the Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew way of narration”; (4) “the ‘divine passive’ of ‘being raised’” without specifically mentioning God’s name, a common Jewish practice; (5) the Aramaic “Cephas” instead of “Simon” as Luke states in the “parallel passage” in Luke 24:34; (6) the twofold reference that this message, particularly that Christ died, was buried, and was raised from the dead, occurred “in accordance with the scriptures”; (7) the use of “the Twelve” as a reference to the “closed group” of witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection appearances; (8) the creed providing a statement of the four events that Christ died for sins, was buried, was raised from the dead, and appeared, which is a list that “is repeated almost in all later reports of the resurrection.” See Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98–99.

31 Many authors have explicated the key features here, including Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 9–49; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, particularly 98–99; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 223–35; Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, as unpacked in Craig’s section “The Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor. 15,” 1–49 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251–59; Hays, First Corinthians, 254–55 (see chap. 11, n. 46).

32 Victor Paul Furnish, Jesus according to Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 24, 27, 31–32, 113. Furnish also mentions “testimonial traditions” (27) as well as “ethical formulations” (113).

33 Furnish, 24.

34 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 3, 8, 17, 46n4, 61–68, 82, 88, 99–101, 106–7, 122–24, 127–28.

35 Cullmann supplements these references with specific usages from Ign. Smyrn. 1, Justin Martyr, Apol. 61, and Tertullian, Spect. 4. See Earliest Christian Confessions, 18–21.

36 Also adding Justin, Dial. 30.3, 85.1–2.

37 Here Cullmann illustrates his point that “the same confession was employed on different occasions even in New Testament times” in Earliest Christian Confessions, 33.

38 Likewise adding Ign. Trall. 9; Smyrn. 1; Magn. 11; Eph. 18.2.

39 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, primarily 16–35. The two quotations are taken from 16.

40 Dodd, 31.

41 Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 137–53.

42 Barnett, 91, 95, 133, 164.

43 Barnett, 138–47; cf. Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7–8, 15–19, 198–99.

44 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9–12, 23–24, 66–68, 90–91, 97–98, 104–7, 117, 123–26, 135, 137, and particularly 141–44, cf. 20.

45 Virtually without exception, these seven authentic Pauline texts are identified by critical scholars as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. They are usually dated from the early to the mid-fifties.

46 Ehrman, New Testament, 44, on the date of Paul’s Epistles and 262, 290 for the comments that these seven are “undisputed.”

47 Luke Timothy Johnson dates these epistles of Paul between AD 40 and 60 in Writings of the New Testament, 144 (see chap. 4, n. 51); also Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:356–57; 2:1–6, 8–10 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

48 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 22, 27, 92–93, 97, 131–32, 141, 251 (see chap. 2, n. 15), Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,” 48 (see chap. 10, n. 24); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454 (see chap. 4, n. 84); cf. Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 37, 61–62, 86 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 855, also 864; Hurtado, How on Earth, 4, 30, cf. 36 (see chap. 9, n. 32); Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, esp. 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47); Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351; Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582, 584, 587, 589 (see chap. 11, n. 44); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71, esp. 266; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, also 12.

49 Although dating these specific creeds within just months is impossible, there are a fair number of commentators across the critical spectrum who agree with Ehrman that at least the content of these creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries can be concluded to have existed before Paul’s conversion. Ehrman does report that “compelling reasons” exist as to why “virtually all scholars” hold that these gospel accounts circulated before Paul’s conversion. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261. Accordingly, that is why we concluded that these very earliest creeds, or at the very least the information contained in them, most likely predated Paul’s conversion. We called them the “pre-Pauline 1” creeds and data. The creeds that may have come after his conversion but still before the first epistle (most likely 1 Thessalonians) are called the “pre-Pauline 2” creeds and data.

50 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, such as 131, 261.

51 Ehrman, 144–46. Ehrman asks regarding Paul’s meetings with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John in Galatians 1–2: “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” (145), adding, “It is hard to get much closer to the historical Jesus than that” (148). Additional details are included on 150–52.

52 Besides Ehrman, other recent skeptical scholars who are cited in this or the previous chapter who express similar views at various relevant points include Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder, Thomas Sheehan, Robert Funk and the members of the Jesus Seminar, G. A. Wells, A. J. M. Wedderburn, Robert M. Price, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John A. T. Robinson, John Kloppenborg, J. K. Elliott, John Alsup, Dale Allison, Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes, Gregory Riley, Howard Clark Kee, Michael Grant, Jack Kent, and Barnabas Lindars. Cf. similarly a few of the non-Christian Jewish scholarly views expressed in Mishkin Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (see chap. 8, n. 7).

53 Bauckham, “Foreword,” in Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son, ix (see chap. 11, n. 94).

54 For example, see Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son, 8.

55 These views were much more commonly taught over a century ago by Wilhelm Bousset, Otto Pfleiderer, and suggested much less frequently since the death of Rudolf Bultmann in 1976. Since that time, suggestions have been made by comparatively few researchers, such as Geza Vermes in Jesus and the World of Judaism, 55–57 (see chap. 5, n. 11). Compare the major response by David Wenham in Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2–13, 116–26, 395–97, along with Bird’s several arguments in Jesus the Eternal Son, 11–24, including Bird’s assertions that the arguments by Vermes and a very few other scholars are now passé among scholars (15, 17, 34–35). Oscar Cullmann’s comments from a far earlier time are still quite instructive as well; see Christology of the New Testament, particularly 216, also 311, 320; on the rejections of Bousset’s influential theories in Cullmann’s time, see 205, 208, 213. Dodd remarks rather stunningly regarding Bousset’s ideas that “seldom, I think, has a theory been so widely accepted on more flimsy grounds.” See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 15.

56 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, esp. 85, also 56, 70.

57 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix–x. For some major works that extend this treatment further, including both defenses as well as challenges, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, including x–xii, 6, 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, especially chaps. 2–3 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9, 22–30, 36–42, 48–50; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 56, 65, 70, 76, 85. While Dunn differs at points from Bauckham and Hurtado, his conclusions are still helpful in Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, 16, 104–5, 132–35, 141–51 (see excursus 1, n. 95); cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864. See Bird’s Jesus the Eternal Son, and for an insightful bibliography and discussion, see the notes in 2–3, 17.

58 Rom 1:4; 8:17, 34; Phil 2:11; Eph 1:20; 1 Pet 3:18; Acts 2:31, 36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10, 26; 9:22; 10:36; 17:3 (twice).

59 1 Thess 1:1; Gal 1:1, 3; 3:13–14; 1 Cor 15:1, 3; 2 Cor 2:11.

60 Rom 1:3–4 (twice); 8:15–17; 1 Thess 1:9–10; cf. Acts 9:20; 13:33.

61 1 Thess 1:10; Gal 1:16; 4:4, 6; 2 Cor 1:19; Rom 1:9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32.

62 As Cullmann argues in Christology of the New Testament, esp. 307, also 201, cf. 235 (see chap. 11, n. 14).

63 For the creedal confessions, see Luke 24:34; Rom 1:4; 4:24; 10:9; 1 Cor 11:23, 26; 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:11; Col 2:6; Acts 2:25, 36; 4:33; 5:33; 10:36. In Paul’s Epistles, see 1 Thess 1:1; Gal 1:3; 1 Cor 16:22 (in Aramaic); 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 1:11.

64 Cf. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 20–23, 79–84.

65 As does a third, apparently noncreedal teaching in Col 2:9.

66 See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 41–45, in relation to Phil 2:6–11, on the preexistence and equality of nature of Jesus with God. Bauckham several times equates the situation in this text to his notion of divine identity.

67 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 146–49, 153; cf. also Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9, 22–30, 36–42, 48–50. A number of these ideas are close to the ones expressed above by Bauckham, as Hurtado also notes on 22n22.

68 Hengel, Son of God, 1–2 (see excursus 1, n. 96).

69 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, x.

70 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 453–54 (emphasis added).

71 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 454, 563. First Corinthians 9:1 is also apparently taken as an equally valuable record of the appearance to Paul, beside 1 Cor 15:8 (458).

72 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 454, 476.

73 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 452, 479, 488–95.

74 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, where most of the time the word appearance is preferred in the relevant texts (452–54, 458, 460, 478–95), but “visons” or “visionary experience” are sometimes chosen as well (454–55, 458, 460, 478). Quite often, the Seminar uses the terms rather interchangeably in the very same context. Still, the nature of the appearances is difficult to ascertain from these word usages alone since these terms are regularly used of various phenomena.

75 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, esp. 568, also 533.

76 Strangely enough, the Seminar cofounder Robert Funk in his book Honest to Jesus (see chap. 5, n. 7) acknowledges that Paul (35) was among those who experienced “a series of visions” of the resurrected Jesus (40, 266), which became the center of the early gospel beliefs (35, 40, 275). The creedal confession in 1 Cor 15:3–5 was very early and “Pre-Pauline” (38–39). Funk agrees with some other scholars who hold that the earliest accounts of Jesus’s appearances began as nonphysical, luminous visions that were later proclaimed in far more physical terms (259–60). These appearances were originally thought of as “luminous apparitions—a blinding light surrounding an indistinct figure—accompanied by some auditory communication, whether real or imagined” (267, plus 268–71, 273). Of course, Funk’s language could be taken in more than one way. Ironically, Funk compares this position to those of James M. Robinson (269–70), another Jesus Seminar member, and prominent New Testament scholar Reginald H. Fuller (271–72). Funk appears to share many similarities with both of these researchers, and they make an intriguing comparison. In Robinson’s well-known presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature in 1981—“Jesus from Easter to Valentinus [or to the Apostles’ Creed],” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 5–37—he argued that the early church initially held that Jesus’s appearances involved “a luminous heavenly body,” with the church later favoring the view that the appearances were those of “a gloriously disembodied spirit,” with both views being in contrast to the orthodox notion of the risen Jesus appearing in a fleshly body (20–21). Nonetheless, Robinson seems to have held that none of these positions “can be literally espoused by serious critical thinkers of today” (37). On the other hand, Reginald Fuller in Formation of the Resurrection Narratives likewise thought that the early New Testament view was that Jesus most likely appeared to his followers in “visionary experiences of light” that also involved a message that Fuller termed as “a communication of meaning.” These appearances were disembodied and not objectively measurable but were still quite real (esp. 46–49, also 172, 181). So far then, these three descriptions seem to be close in a number of key aspects. The major difference between Robinson and Fuller, however, is that Robinson rejects these resurrection appearances as actually having occurred according to any of the definitions, while Fuller thinks that Jesus actually appeared in the manner that he describes. Which of these two views comes the closest to Funk’s at these points? Both options could be at least somewhat consistent with Funk’s language, depending on what the individual words mean. This lack of definition and clarity seems like it may be the case with many members of the Jesus Seminar, perhaps even as a whole, almost as if there is a specific desire not to be too precise. It may just be that, in a similar way among their members, views on many sides of this divide may perhaps be present.

77 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454.

78 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, examples include 92–93, 131, 144–46, 261.

79 Critical scholars are regularly much agreed on this point. See especially Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9–11, 20–29, 43–60, 67–68, 131–32; Hurtado, How on Earth, 5, 22–24, 27–28; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21–24; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–50, 63–64; Cullmann, “Tradition,” 64; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 8, 67–70, 115–16.

80 As carefully spelled out by Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 10, 18, 20–21, 24, 48–49, 58–60, 67, 80, 91; also, Hurtado, How on Earth, 30, 36, 48, 192; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, esp. 22; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 53, 57–58; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 18, 185–86; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 308. Ehrman expresses some similar words in How Jesus Became God, 84, 108, also 3 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

81 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 26–27; especially Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 265–66, 307–8, also 30–32, 389; cf. Hurtado, How on Earth, 30, 36; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10, 17–18, 46–49, 58; cf. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, 18–19, 21, 26, 31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 49–50; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

82 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 16.

83 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–40; also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261.

84 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20.

85 Neufeld, 24.

86 It could be objected that the uses of the apostles’ names or positions does not require that they were in accord with the gospel teachings. However, immediately after providing this creedal list, Paul specifically stated that these leaders did in fact agree with these teachings (1 Cor 15:11).

87 Hays, First Corinthians, 257.

88 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 9–11.

89 Soards, 1 Corinthians, 321.

90 This trip is usually dated to approximately AD 47 or 48; see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:103. John Meier places the event at AD 49 in Marginal Jew, 3:219–20 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

91 For a discussion of some of the pros and cons of this meeting either being the same or a subsequent visit of Paul’s to Jerusalem, see Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1979), 111–12; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 474–81. Craig Keener reports that “a majority of scholars” identify the events in Acts 15:1–35 and Gal 2:1–10 as the same occasion. See Keener, Acts, 361 (see chap. 9, n. 38).

92 The New Revised Standard Version translates the key adverb in Acts 15:25 as “unanimously.”

93 Hengel, Atonement, 38, 69 (see chap. 6, n. 86).

94 Johnson, Real Jesus, 103 (see chap. 5, n. 49).

95 Kee, What Can We Know, 1 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

96 Betz, Galatians, 96.

97 Betz, 100; also 86–89, 95–96.

98 Besides the scholars above, other researchers include Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 14; Ehrman, New Testament, 307–8; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 132 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:355 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:118, also 3:219–20; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 29–30; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 110 (see excursus 1, n. 86); Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 15 (see excursus 1, n. 85); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 140 (see chap. 1, n. 19); William Lane Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 39; Harris, Raised Immortal, 9 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 136 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 126–27, 142; Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers,” 283–84 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 107 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 121 (see chap. 8, n. 73).

99 Such as Phil 2:5; 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9–10; 2 Tim 2:11–13; Titus 1:9; Heb 2:1–4; 4:14; 12:2; 13:20–21; 1 Pet 1:21; 2:21; 4:1; 1 John 4:2, 14. The use of the term ontōs (“really” or “indeed”) in the creedal comment in Luke 24:34 could also be construed in this manner, as well, perhaps like the use of “verily.”

100 In our present context, see especially 1 Cor 15:11–15, 19; and Gal 1:20. Other broader situations might include Luke 1:1–4; John 19:35; 21:24; 1 Cor 2:13; 14:37–38; 2 Pet 1:16–18; 1 John 1:1–4.

101 Such as Jesus being a descendent of David (Rom 1:3), born of a woman (Gal 4:4), the notion of being a witness (Matt 28:19a; 1 Tim 6:13), creation (Col 1:15–17), Jesus’s return (1 Thess 1:10), and so on.

102 In addition to the study of these creedal confessions, a handful of other developments in recent New Testament studies have similarly contributed to this historical interest. Other such areas would include the application of the historical criteria especially to the Gospels, along with the recognition that the Gospel genre seems most closely to resemble the broad area of Greco-Roman biographies. Though these latter two subjects have also been questioned, the give and take has usually resulted in recent scholars learning not to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, since even stricter applications of these tools can still yield major historical insights. In general, these developments seem to have won the day at least to some extent with the majority of critical scholars. Each of them plays a role in the current, long-standing popularity of the Historical Jesus movement of the last few decades. For example, the Jesus Seminar makes many positive comments regarding the use of the criteria in determining historical portions in the Gospels; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 25–26, 32–35, 454, 461–62. The conclusion of Greco-Roman biography (bioi) as the correct Gospel genre also seems to be the majority position today; see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 276; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 201–4.

103 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210.

104 Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2004), 37n2.

105 Readers must constantly remember throughout this study that, from the beginning, descriptions of scholars as atheists, non-Christians, agnostics, or skeptics are decidedly not to be taken as derogatory labels, but as following the minimal facts method, where the second (though less crucial) criterion is that even such skeptical scholars allow the vast majority of these items here. Hence these descriptions are identifying features that help to develop the ongoing argument.

106 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38 (see chap. 6, n. 173), whose maximum date for the pre-Pauline creed 1 Cor 15:3–7 is three years after the crucifixion; Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,”, 48, who dates the appearance data to two years at the latest, as it was taught to Paul at the time of his conversion; Sheehan, First Coming, 110–12, 118, 135 (see excursus 1, n. 16), who also agrees that the appearance reports go back to no more than two to four years after the crucifixion, when these traditions were taught to Paul; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 24; Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 16–17; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 111, 274n265 (see chap. 1, n. 42); Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 65; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 208, 223–39, 244, 317, 353; Michael Grant, Saint Paul (Glasgow: Collins Sons, 1976), 104; Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 30, 65 (see chap. 6, n. 54); Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251, 254; Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 125 (see chap. 1, n. 43); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 15–16, 92, 95–99, 120–29; Vermes, Resurrection, 2, 5, 9, 111–12, 121–23, 141–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14); Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2; plus other mixed Jewish positions such as those of Martin Goodman (210) along with at least six other views (139, 212) as listed in Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus; cf. other comments in Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000), 55; Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149 (see excursus 1, n. 19).

107 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261; also Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–40.

108 Ehrman, 131.

109 Ehrman repeats these themes often, as in Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 22, 27, 109–13, 140–41, 172, 232, 261–63, cf. 92–93, 97, 130–32, 171, 251, 254; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, 154–55, 216–18, 225–30.

110 Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99.

111 In addition to Bart Ehrman and John Drane, other researchers who hold that at least some of the Acts sermon summaries also reflect the earliest Christian preaching and teaching include Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 47–49, 112–15 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Helmut Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1981): 2; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” esp. 351, 358–62, 367; J. K. Elliott, “The First Easter,” History Today 29 (1979): 215; John Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis with Text Synopsis, Calwer Theologische Monographien 5 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), 64–65, 81–85; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 453, 456, 691; Johnson, Living Jesus, 34; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91; Hengel, Atonement, 34; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, esp. 79–80, 164–65; Francis X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus: Mystère de salut, 10th ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 22; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 44–45; Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 90, 228–31; Brown, New Testament Christology, 112–13 (see chap. 8, n. 17), 164; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 216–20, 468, 616; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 322; Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1988), 48–52; Rowan Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1982), 7–11; Barnabas Lindars, “The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57 (1975): 367–68; Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Some New Testament Words for Resurrection and the Company They Keep,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 138; Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Roman Catholic Fundamental Theology,” The Resurrection: An International Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 225–26; J. Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Grempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 419–22, 427; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 141 (see excursus 1, n. 93); Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 233 (see excursus 1, n. 19);M. Gourges, A la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Gabalda et Cie Editeurs, 1978), especially 169–78.

112 Cullmann, “Tradition,” 65.

113 See Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1984), 64, 86, 146–50. Again, the dispute between Paul and Peter reported in Gal 2:11–14 was over dietary customs and fellowship (especially verses 12, 14), not doctrine, and most of all not over the definition of the gospel content.

114 Bauckham is quite outspoken on this topic. See his volume Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly 30, 264–69, 304–8. From the very early and classical creedal texts, see also Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, particularly 9–17, 24–25, 32–33, 141–43; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–24, 26, 31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 165–71.

115 Regarding the acceptance of this material listed here by critical scholars as the recognized, consensus position held by the majority of researchers today, see especially Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–69, 308; Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, especially 475–76, cf. also 489, 497–98; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351, including note 11; Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582, 589; cf. Hays, First Corinthians, esp. 255.

116 Neufeld is especially helpful on this emphasis in Earliest Christian Confessions, particularly 10–17, 20–21, 24–25, 32–33, 140–46. See also Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21–23; also, 11, 16, 19, 26, 31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50, 53, 57–58, 64; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 165–69; Hurtado, How on Earth, 30, 36, 192; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7–8, 54–58, 67–70. With the majority of scholars, Barnett places the date of 1 Thessalonians at AD 50 in Birth of Christianity, 42, 54, 76, 208.

117 Especially 1 Cor 15:3–7; Luke 24:34; cf. Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9.

118 Including Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:29–31; 17:31.

119 For those who think Jesus was crucified in AD 33, this shrinks the gap even a little more. See Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7–9, 25; also, Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 93n9.

120 Examples of some of the creedal confessions with the contexts and applications include Rom 1:1–5; 4:23–25; 10:9–11; 1 Cor 11:23–32; 15:1–7; Phil 2:6–11; Eph 1:18–21; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Thess 1:9–10; 1 Pet 3:14–22. Sermon summaries in Acts that include some of these same applications are found in the following texts: Acts 2:37–41; 3:16; 4:1–4, 12; 5:29–32; 10:42–43; 13:38–39; 17:30–31.

121 Gerd Lüdemann, “Closing Response,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 159–60.

122 Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths, 233 (see chap. 8, n. 102).

123 These as well as similar ideas are shared by the likes of Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:4–11; Fuller, Foundations of New Testament Christology, 105–6 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Joseph M. Hallman, “The Resurrection of the Human Jesus,” Process Studies 8 (1978): 257; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation,” in Revelation as History, ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg, trans. David Granskou (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 139–45; Raymond E. Brown, Jesus: God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1967), 96–105; Thomas Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 20; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 182; Hans Küng, Eternal Life? Life after Death as a Medical, Philosophical, and Theological Problem, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 107; William Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life (London: Epworth, 1970), 227–28, cf. 196; Robert H. Smith, Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus according to the Four Evangelists (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), 49–50, 54; Brian Hebblethwaite, “The Resurrection and the Incarnation,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1993), 169; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 122–25; Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, 47 (see excursus 1, n. 83); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 143, 232–35; Johnson, Living Jesus, 46, 97, 193, 199–200; Pheme Perkins, “The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Recent Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 442; Stephen Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 9; John White, The Magnificent Obsession: The Joy of Christian Commitment, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), esp. chaps. 1 and 7; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 2nd ed., trans. Reginald H. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 45–104; Wright, Following Jesus, chaps. 6–7, 11–12 (see chap. 10, n. 118); Craig L. Blomberg, Heart, Soul, and Money: A Christian View of Possessions (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2000), chaps. 4–6; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship, 4, 7, 12–13, 25, 30–31, 109–14, 121, 126–27 (see excursus 1, n. 34); David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2010), particularly chaps. 6–9 (see chap. 10, n. 118).

124 Rom 1:3–4, Acts 2:22–24; 17:30–31 for a few examples.

125 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Christ, 37n2.

126 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 145, 261.

127 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

128 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855, 864.

129 Hurtado, How on Earth, 29–30, 36, cf. 192.

130 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. 266, 307–8.

131 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50.

132 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, particularly 16, 19, 26, 31.

133 Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2.

134 In this chapter (plus the previous one on minimal historical fact 3 on the earliness of the resurrection reports), we have viewed many atheist, agnostic, Jewish, and other skeptical authors who concede that at least some of the New Testament creedal traditions originated in the 30s, likely even before Paul’s conversion, along with related positions, such as placing many of these items at least in the 30s. This recognition can be found in researchers such as Rudolf Bultmann, Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder, Robert Funk and the members of the Jesus Seminar, G. A. Wells, Thomas Sheehan, A. J. M. Wedderburn, Robert M. Price, J. K. Elliott, Jack Kent, John Alsup, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, John A. T. Robinson, John Kloppenborg, Dale Allison, Howard Clark Kee, Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes, Gregory Riley, Howard Clark Kee, Michael Grant, and Barnabas Lindars. Cf. also the non-Christian Jewish scholarly views that are reported in Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus.

135 Besides Kloppenborg in “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351, others who make similar comments are Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71; and Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” esp. 475–76, also 489, 497–98; cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 261; and Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

136 See the chapter below that moves from the disciples having experiences to these events being actual appearances of the risen Jesus.

12

Minimal Fact 4: The Disciples’ Transformations

Religious and other sorts of transformations may seem rather commonplace these days. Not only do people willingly place themselves in harm’s way for what they think is a good cause, but some at least seem willing to die as martyrs for their beliefs. Fewer of these persons actually end up dying for their sacred causes, whether or not they meant to do so, but it does happen. Even political movements are frequently characterized by fervent metamorphoses to the extent that the participants’ lives are willingly endangered. Some have also died for their political beliefs. These potential examples include accounts of those with Communist ideologies, Buddhist monks during the Vietnam War, various species of suicide missions, Christian or other missionary activities, and so forth. Increasingly, we are reminded that many persons, both Christians and non-Christians, have given their lives for religious or political ideas that they sincerely believe.

Against such a contemporary climate, why do Christians sometimes assume that after Jesus’s death his disciples were uniquely transformed, including their willingness to die for their faith? Further, why is their profound change often treated as an indication that their message was true? Is this early Christian phenomenon anchored in history, as critical scholars usually acknowledge? On the other hand, it might appear that such events were perhaps only status quo rather than unique.

The purpose in this chapter is to explore the subject of the disciples’ transformations after Jesus’s death. Were these occurrences really commonplace religious experiences, being more or less typical of religious and political zeal in general? Or were they truly exceptional events?

The Transformations of the Disciples

Intriguingly, there are several lines of evidence that establish that Jesus’s disciples both abandoned him just before his crucifixion as well as experienced absolute despair and despondency immediately after this event. These attitudes were followed by their elation and total exuberance just a short time later. However, the same individuals who fled and denied him earlier were resolute and willing to suffer for Jesus and his message just a brief time later. It is also taught regularly that this “renovation” was caused by the disciples’ sincere belief that they had seen the risen Jesus and that this attitude was long-lasting.

To begin, there is a rich quantity of multiple source attestation of these occurrences from individual authors in the New Testament as well as in noncanonical Christian and pagan sources. The Gospel accounts are quite clear. Before Jesus’s crucifixion, his accompanying group of male followers abandoned and even denied him.1 While the women went to Jesus’s tomb by themselves on the first day of the week, presumably to finish the burial process (Luke 24:1), the men were in hiding because they feared reprisal from the Jews (John 20:19). However, just a short time later there was an undeniable contrast in the behavior of especially the men, with the relevant texts claiming that many and perhaps all of these followers were altered radically, with no recanting as far as is known. Boldness and faith replaced their previous fear, with their lives being characterized by a new purpose. They proclaimed their message and were willing to die for it.2

Extrabiblical sources—both secular3 and Christian4—provide additional indications of these disciples’ later transformations. Sometimes their martyrdoms are recorded in these texts along with the deaths of many other early believers.5

These various texts all support these data from an array of angles too, as a few examples indicate. Multiple source attestation extends from the twin independent sources provided by the Synoptic Gospel sources along with John, as well as the extracanonical Christian writings plus secular sources such as those just mentioned.

Before the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus in AD 62, several key, multiply attested texts6 record the majority view among critical scholars that James was an unbeliever during his brother’s ministry.7 But when he shows up later, both with the early band of believing followers after Jesus’s crucifixion and ascension (Acts 1:12–14) as well sometime afterward as the leader of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13–19), it is obvious that something has happened to him! According to what could even be the earliest of the creedal traditions (1 Cor 15:7), we are told that Jesus appeared to James.8 This trek observed here from unbeliever to follower of Jesus, pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and martyr certainly describes a transformed life of over thirty years in duration, all the way to death.9

Then there is the overwhelming support from Paul’s own testimony too.10 Paul later provided both early and eyewitness reports from both sides of his apostolic transformation—from the role he played in his persecution of the earliest Christians before his conversion along with observing their reactions closely.11 This was followed by Paul’s significant witness to what he observed personally of the highly visible changes in the other apostles and in many believers after their conversions as well as his own transformation after his conversion.12

Other factors need to be mentioned. The principle of embarrassment is also evident here, including major examples drawn from several occasions over these early years. These instances evidence the deep level of commitment observed in these early apostles both before and after these remarkable changes that occurred to them. After his conversion, James became one of the two key leaders in the young Jerusalem church along with Peter.13 We have already mentioned how the other chief leader, Peter, denied the Lord multiple times before assuming this same lofty post in the ancient Jerusalem church.14 These two examples are nothing short of amazing and must be explained by strong reasons inasmuch as their being admitted by early believers in spite of the embarrassing factors are best considered as accurate reporting of the data. These prior humiliating testimonies became linked with these men’s subsequent transformations, both inspired by Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

Moreover, when Jesus predicted his coming death and resurrection, not only did his apostles misunderstand his teaching by quite a large margin, but they followed their mistake by their quite firm rebuke of Jesus. They even exasperated the problem by maintaining strongly that they would never forsake him or allow these things to happen, even if it meant their death.15 Not only did they also reveal their crucial lack of understanding regarding the central role of what would later be their own gospel proclamation, but the sources attest that Jesus termed this sort of outburst the work of Satan.16 None of these traits were becoming of the key leaders in the earliest church, though their human frailty could happen to almost anyone!

Then of course, Paul was an accomplished persecutor of the nascent church in his own right. He was not bashful about proclaiming these things in his epistles, asserting, “I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it” (Gal 1:13).17 Additionally, the canonical sources did not shelter its readers from hearing about the arguments between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36–41) or between Paul and Peter (Gal 2:11–16).

The cases of James the brother of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the entire group of apostles are each in their own way specific examples of quite radical transformations indeed. These three individuals recovered from difficult beginnings that no doubt were fresh in the minds of all the apostles as a group.18 Not only were these three men the central church leaders but, along with John, they were also the most influential persons in church history. Moreover, there are first-century reports of the martyrdoms of all three men. As the saying goes, the further someone gets down, the further the opportunity to rise back up. On a pastoral note, these three scarred men show how beautifully the Lord can reclaim and salvage wounded persons!

A word should be added here about the frequent comment that the early Christian leaders were willing to die for their faith. It may be charged that this point is questionable unless we are willing to engage in mind reading the thoughts of historical persons, which is the largely eschewed practice of historical psychologizing. However, no minds need to be read here at all. It is enough just to watch the apostles’ feet! When people continually and repeatedly walk into the very same places where they have been attacked previously, including having been wounded quite severely, or when they repeatedly enter places very similar to those haunts where those events already happened, this can fairly be said to indicate their willingness to take the risk to their own lives to preach the gospel message. This is the chief idea being put forth in situations such as these regarding Jesus’s apostles as well as others, as illustrated regularly in the book of Acts and elsewhere.

Further, in spite of such repeated cases of the willingness to endure open persecution even over long periods of time, an additional point is that the available ancient sources record no known cases of apostolic defections.19 We have already mentioned some ancient accounts of apostolic martyrdoms, and these cases effectively indicate that no defections occurred with at least these apostles! Further, there are no early accounts where these apostles, singly or in groups, were given the opportunity to recant and left the faith, and this bothers occasional critics.20

Whether or not more data would be helpful, this desire does not change for a moment the martyrdom cases that we do possess from the first century, particularly those pertaining to the most important apostolic witnesses.21 Further, almost any potential Christian victim could have cried out and begged for mercy to be released, even at the last moment, and it would be difficult to imagine that an enemy would not relish such an opportunity to proclaim loudly the falsehood of at least that particular believer’s claims. True, such a response is made from silence, but for whatever it is worth, no early evidence exists for such a scenario either. And though he was not an apostle,22 Ignatius, writing about AD 110, begged the Roman believers to allow him to be fed to the wild beasts in Rome and was indeed martyred, just as he wished.23 Lastly, Roman governor Pliny’s testimony from just a few years after Ignatius’s example was that, in his experience, true Christians could not be forced to recant (Ep. 97). This should be heeded as well. Though this may be far from what Candida Moss might want, the data are headed away from the general direction that she supports.

As a last suggestion that needs to be raised, it should also be remembered that normal psychological responses to the sudden and especially violent deaths of loved ones often lead to various distraught human emotions, such as hopelessness, despair, and bereavement suffering.24 This very real fear that often plagues survivors is particularly reflected immediately after Jesus’s capture. Despite their previous protestations to the contrary, the disciples immediately abandoned their leader, followed by the denials of the lead apostle Peter just shortly afterwards. What happened here could have led to additional roadblocks before Jesus’s resurrection appearances, all of which serve as further reasons against the resulting transformations of the disciples, especially those that occur immediately.

Impressive amounts of ancient comments that favor the transformation of Jesus’s disciples can be drawn from canonical and noncanonical Christian texts as well as ancient secular writings, with a few checks and balances provided by the criteria of authenticity, among other indications. Seen especially in light of Paul’s early and eyewitness testimony from both sides of the issue, these add up to large numbers of witnesses. It is no wonder, then, that contemporary critical scholars, even including skeptics of several varieties, rarely challenge or doubt that Jesus’s disciples were radically transformed from fearful followers of Jesus or even unbelievers into courageous proclaimers of their faith. Based on the data that establish this fearful doubt followed by a newly energized faith, the critical agreement is solid.25

Examining the Disciples’ Transformations

The New Testament testimony along with other ancient sources together attest that the disciples abandoned Jesus shortly before his death, followed by their doubts and despair immediately afterward. Days later, these same disciples emerged with a boldness not previously seen in them. Their preaching centered on their belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, as indicated by his appearances to them. These major occurrences best explain the drastic turnaround of these followers.26

Even quite critical scholars acknowledge their widespread agreement that whether they were right or wrong in this matter, it was the deep belief and conviction of Jesus’s disciples’ that they had actually seen appearances of the risen Jesus that caused and gave rise to their reversal of faith and behavior. This was the impetus. Atheist New Testament specialist Ehrman is particularly adamant: “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.”27 Providing additional details on the force of these convictions, Ehrman also notes, “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead. Their conviction on this matter eventually turned the world on its ear.”28

Helmut Köster proclaims that “the resurrection and the appearances of Jesus are best explained as a catalyst which prompted reactions that resulted in the missionary activity and founding of the churches, but also in the crystallization of the tradition about Jesus and his ministry. But most of all, the resurrection changed sorrow and grief, or even hate and rejection, into joy, creativity, and faith.”29 The belief in Jesus’s resurrection appearances was clearly what caused the profound transformation of Jesus’s disciples. Ben Meyer asserts succinctly, “That it was the Easter experiences which affected [the disciples’] transformation is beyond reasonable doubt.”30 Luke Timothy Johnson states, “Christianity was birthed by the resurrection.”31 N. T. Wright declares that because of Jesus’s resurrection, “the first generation of Christians . . . announced and celebrated the victory of Jesus over evil. . . . That was the basis of their remarkable joy.”32 As attested by Larry Hurtado, a resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus to Paul likewise accounted for his own transformation: “That is, at its heart, Paul’s conversion appears to have been a radical change in his view of Jesus.”33 Many other exceptionally critical scholars are included among those who readily agree.34

Following the progress of our argument over the past few chapters, the crescendo was being reached. Soon after the sheer despair of the crucifixion, the data indicate firmly that the disciples were utterly convinced at several points that they had witnessed literal appearances of the risen Jesus. This belief was taught and preached at an exceptionally early date after the events. It seems quite clear, then, that it was this belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead that caused the disciples to understand the inherent meaning that had now been manifested. Eternal life was a reality—they had witnessed it directly in the person of the risen Jesus! It was inevitable that Jesus’s followers would be raised too, as in 1 Pet 1:3–5. Though the war was continuing at present, even persecution should not stop these believers from rejoicing. Persecution could be faced head-on (1 Pet 1:6–7). The bottom line was “indescribable and glorious joy” (1:9)!

The fight would continue for now, but Paul could proclaim the end result: death and evil had been dealt an absolute death blow (1 Cor 15:53–58). The salvific events had already occurred, and they were being proclaimed! Hope, joy, and peace were the result (Rom 15:13). In step-by-step fashion, the resurrection experiences were responsible for the change in the disciples. Jesus had taught this too, but the change was not merely due to the disciples simply thinking this process through. As mentioned several times in this study, the New Testament resurrection language is the language of sight: the disciples had witnessed the victory with their very own eyes!

And it really, truly worked! Somehow, these occurrences transformed Jesus’s followers from their initial shock, despair, and doubt to their firm convictions that they had seen their master alive after his death by crucifixion. It was the disciples’ sincere belief that Jesus had appeared to them that accounted for their zeal in preaching and teaching. The speed with which it happened provides some small indication of how powerful it was in person.

Were the Disciples’ Resurrection Experiences Unique?

Several factors complicate the analysis of religious transformations. For instance, they appear to be relatively common and widely divergent. The spokespersons often propagate claims that clearly contradict those made by other religious enthusiasts, sometimes even from their own camps. Many throughout history have seemingly used their soapboxes to propagate beliefs that are demonstrably false.

Additionally, research has shown that with some religious groups, there can be very high percentages of turnover among the practitioners even after relatively short time spans.35 These and similar findings raise a variety of special questions concerning how to measure these changes. Should such demarcations somehow begin again if a different belief motivates someone for another brief time span? How far removed does the next view need to be from the original to be counted as a new commitment? Could any of these changes count more accurately as infatuations? Should measurable data of one sort or another be considered or even allowed? Can faith alone be a sufficient ground for a reasonable religious or political commitment? Concerns like these may even potentially challenge the implications commonly drawn regarding religious metamorphoses.

Of course, this study concerns a particular set of religious transformations: those of the earliest Christians and Jesus’s disciples specifically. These conversions appear to have lasted a lifetime too, at least where we possess this information, as will be addressed below. What, then, distinguishes these believers from others who also claim religious or political changes? Were the conversions of these earliest disciples of a markedly different quality? Can their experiences help serve as the foundation for the faith of subsequent Christians? After all, it could hardly be denied that many religious transformations are found later to have been based on false beliefs.

Let us be clear yet again from the outset: even genuine religious transformations do not prove the truth content of one’s beliefs—in fact, most often they are very far from doing so. However, they do potentially address the sincerity of the person’s beliefs in personally accepting the truth of that content as expressed in their claims. The frequently acknowledged principle is that truly being willing to die for a particular cause most likely indicates one’s honest belief in it, whether that cause is religious, political, or otherwise. Again, this is not to prove the underlying substance of the claim to be true. A common adage is that liars do not make good martyrs, at least not willing ones. One indication of this is that we would be pressed to find many (or any?) historical cases where willing and sincere martyrdom does not presuppose faith and commitment to the proclaimed cause, even in examples where the real cause is not necessarily the one that is stated out loud.36

As with other examples, at least several of Jesus’s disciples suffered and died for their sincere belief in the Christian cause. We will not review the data for these events here, though it has been produced and argued elsewhere in particular studies, including additional material in these volumes.37 But closer observation of the roots of the respective belief systems might reveal qualitative differences between the disciples and other examples. It is at this point that a major variation emerges.

Distinctly unlike some other religious or perhaps even societal causes, Jesus’s disciples did not change to the place of being willing to die primarily for a set of doctrines or even for a deep commitment to a particular ethical or political conviction. The canonical New Testament writings do not comment on ethical or political causes being the major factor in the disciples’ profound change. After the guards came to arrest Jesus in the garden, the disciples’ commitment was at least temporarily lacking. Then after the unexpected death of their master, they may have thought that their hopes for the future had evaporated. They were in hiding, at least initially, from that point until the resurrection appearances.

Nor were the disciples’ reactions to Jesus’s initial appearances built significantly on their already-existing faith, though there was doubtless some “upgrading” of their belief from having been with Jesus. As seen above, both the New Testament texts along with the majority views of contemporary critical scholarship agree on the reasons for the change. But even if they were temporarily stunned in the presence of their deeper convictions, this would not account for their unique response. In other words, the disciples were not transformed simply by faith, either preexistent or otherwise.38

Again, the data indicate and scholars overwhelmingly agree that the disciples were willing to give their lives, if necessary, specifically because of an experience: they were absolutely and sincerely convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus alive again after his death. According to the earliest records, their proclamation revolved around the language of sight.39 Their transformation was not primarily the result of accepting an ideology, like so many others who have changed views through the centuries, but their new outlook was expressly centered in personal experiences. They were profoundly persuaded that they had actually seen the resurrected Jesus. Such at least was their deepest belief and conviction.

This is also the New Testament proclamation. After his argument that Jesus made a number of appearances to many persons (1 Cor 15:3–8), Paul asserted that, apart from the resurrection, faith was vain. The appearances and the resulting transformations were tied to this singular event (15:14, 17). The resurrection was their basis for eternal life, for if Jesus had not been raised, neither would believers be raised (15:17–19). The final result was that believers would be similarly raised (15:20, 42–50); not even death held any more sting (15:53–57). The truth of this message is what leads to Christian commitment and service (15:58–16:4).

Other writers make similar claims. The disciples at least doubted before meeting the risen Jesus (Luke 24:11; John 20:9, 24–25; pseudo-Mark 16:11, 13, 14). Rather, it was precisely Jesus’s appearances that led the disciples to their deep commitment (Luke 24:32, 52–53; John 20:20, 28–29; pseudo-Mark 16:20). The resurrection was the center of their early message (Acts 4:2, 33). Because Jesus’s resurrection secured eternal life, Christians could have a new view of death (2 Cor 4:14–18; Phil 1:21–23; 3:20–21). They believed that the most serious struggles of life could be faced with rejoicing since Jesus’s resurrection had secured eternal life for believers (1 Pet 1:3–9; cf. 1 John 3:1–3).

It seems quite clear that the disciples’ reaction was based on their belief that they had seen the risen Jesus. Their transformation was the result of their sincere conviction that he was alive and that this event was the basis for their eternal future. The resurrection of Jesus was constantly proclaimed to be the center of the faith. Without it, it is certainly arguable that their situation would not have been substantially different from many other religious persons with heartfelt beliefs. But the disciples of Elijah, Elisha, or John the Baptist did not react or change the world like this.40 Apart from their total assurance of Jesus’s resurrection, the disciples’ experiences may have been distinct in certain other ways, but as far as religious transformations go, their situation might appear to be relatively ordinary.

But here is the chief difference: if they were correct that the risen Jesus had actually appeared to them, the disciples’ transformations would have been based on a genuine occurrence that produced actual results in the real world. In brief, if Jesus was actually raised and appeared to them, as they absolutely believed, that data impinging on them was the most likely cause of their transformation. In this study as well as elsewhere, it has been argued that the various world religions do not include the teachings that their major founders were actually raised from the dead and appeared to their followers. Nor is there any actual evidence that such events really took place.41 Thus, if the risen Jesus actually did appear to his disciples, then these events would appear to be unique occurrences. Especially if such experiences were veridical in nature, then the disciples’ transformations probably would be grounded in some kind of observable data rather than in the mere conviction alone that their beliefs were true. This is a crucial distinction, though we have already moved past the conditional portion here to the actual event, as done in this study.

A personal reflection might help with this epistemic distinction. If being sure of something were absolutely crucial for people, what sort of a basis would be generally preferred? Would the answer be to desire a strong conviction and belief alone, or would we choose to actually see something that, by itself, indicates the probability of our cherished truths? Such evidence could of course always be recalled and rehearsed for assurance, just as it was in the New Testament, meaning that the data plus the conviction both would be present (Luke 7:18–23). Further, what if the apparent sense data produced an even stronger conviction precisely because events were witnessed and the data could be reviewed as well?

Now let’s convert this hypothetical situation to an evidential consideration. Let us pose a circumstance where our closest friend and mentor, the chief religious influence in our life, died quite unexpectedly and even violently. Believing strongly in the reality of the afterlife could be a huge relief here (cf. 1 Thess 4:13 here as an example). But which circumstance would carry a greater conviction: our deep faith alone that life after death is a reality, or our faith plus being utterly convinced that we actually saw this same person after their death, several times, however unusual the particulars? Now what if there were even a few group experiences of this deceased person, including some who were previously unbelievers, such that each person present was likewise sure that they had seen the person too? Imagine further that, as hard as everyone tried, all the inevitable attempts to provide viable alternative explanations failed noticeably? Knowing that faith alone is often subject even to wild fluctuations, it seems clear that many, perhaps even most believers, would choose the evidential scenario.

Apart from a resurrection, though, such a negative conclusion would most likely determine the way the central question in this essay would be answered. In such a case, the disciples’ religious experiences still could be quite sincere, perhaps even exemplary, and may still have led to the most influential religious movement in human history. But ultimately, the transformations would arguably be classified as exceptional examples of a commonplace category of phenomena.

Candida Moss may be correct in her assertion that Christians “like to think of their martyrs as unique.”42 But this hardly condemns the disciples’ faith. Even without much evidence, they could still possibly have been correct. But under these circumstances, could the disciples’ resulting transformations somehow indicate that Jesus’s resurrection had actually occurred?43 This has already been answered negatively here, as has been done elsewhere on many previous occasions.44 Their personal changes in and of themselves cannot demonstrate that an event occurred in history.

However, if the available evidence best indicated that the disciples did witness appearances of the risen Jesus individually as well as in group settings, accompanied by other sorts of veridical data as indicated by several lines of argumentation like those produced in this study, then this would change the overall probability of the event itself. Still, such would still not be due to their new demeanor alone. The emphasis would presumably fall on the data, with the disciples’ transformations potentially raising the data to a greater level of probability.

Another Angle on the Resurrection Data

In other words, even an extraordinary change in the disciples’ outlooks or beliefs would hardly help the overall case markedly if the events themselves were poorly substantiated and even less so if the occurrences were nonexistent. Beliefs do not create historical realities. On the other hand, if various types of sufficient evidential support were also present, the disciples could possess a far better basis for their new convictions than if they could only produce faith claims alone to show for it, however firmly the latter beliefs were held.

But if the disciples had actually experienced appearances of the risen Jesus, the almost instantaneous joy that is described when they first saw their Lord would more readily be understood and could thereby augment the situation. It might be explained this way: if as argued, at least several of these key apostles claimed actually to have seen the risen Jesus themselves,45 and this became their central teaching overall, their utter transformations and in some cases their willing martyrdoms could best provide insight and even additional indications pointing to the nature of these appearances of Jesus.

As explained by prominent philosopher Richard Swinburne, when strong evidence is provided for occurrences like Jesus’s resurrection appearances and is considered via the very specific requirements of Bayes’ Theorem, other surrounding evidence in favor of the associated historical events or factors that cohere with it are crucial to include in the study. For examples, the general condition and provenance of the texts, the disciples’ transformations, the moral emphasis of Jesus’s teachings, in addition to other significant factors, need to be considered in addition to the actual occurrences themselves. As Swinburne notes, “The general background evidence will be evidence of the sort of thing that is likely to happen.”46 These factors more precisely unpack how it is known whether or not the major events such as Jesus’s appearances really happened. The appropriate calculations regarding all of the likelihoods must be determined in light of the adjacent considerations, both prior as well as posterior.47

Arguing quite similarly and also from Bayes’ Theorem, Timothy and Lydia McGrew specifically zero in on the disciples’ postresurrection transformations along with the testimonies of the women at the empty tomb, plus the appearance data reported by Jesus’s disciples, James, and Paul as precisely the type of helpful data that could actually add probability that the events happened. The apostolic transformations themselves need to be grounded in reality, and when wed to the known events, they may add greater probabilistic weight to the occurrences.48

Virtually all scholars in relevant fields of research recognize that these rather incredible apostolic transformations obtained, so it might be asked what these profound changes may have indicated, especially when the underlying facts are likewise acknowledged. It is most often commented that the disciples’ metamorphoses indicated their degree of belief that Christianity was true, which is conceded by all. Yet, it is too seldom emphasized that the extraordinary extent of these about-faces would most likely be due not so much to their general belief that their faith was true, but to their degree of conviction specifically regarding the appearances themselves. Though Ehrman does not think that Jesus was raised from the dead, he argues clearly that it was the force of the disciples’ convictions that changed the world.49

Thus, since the resurrection was the absolute center of the disciples’ faith and the gospel proclamation itself, as attested often in the New Testament writings, such convictions would be for them due to the truth of these appearances (as in 1 Cor 15:12–20; 1 Thess 4:13–14; 1 Pet 1:3–6). In other words, the disciples’ willingness to die was due precisely to their absolute conviction that they had seen the risen Jesus alive again.50 Their degree of change is most likely due to their high level of assurance regarding what happened to them.

Again, to place this in perspective, though their transformations hardly proved the underlying resurrection reality, the resulting level of unwavering conviction and assurance intensifies the degree of the apostles’ confidence on behalf of these facts. It was stated repeatedly that these transformations were accounted for by the direct conviction of the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive forevermore and that reality also had been extended to them as well. Given these facts, nothing could move them.

Stating succinctly this point alone, here is the key: the disciples were strongly convicted they had actually seen appearances of the risen Jesus. This is hardly ever disputed. The greater that assurance without retreat (as far as is known) increases the likelihood that the disciples actually did witness Jesus’s appearances—by no means because beliefs invent events, but because they provide additional insights and considerations that favor the historical events in question. This is because the probability of the actual appearances is actually increased by the additional, surrounding information, including the outstanding level of commitment that points directly to these occurrences as the best explanation, as the McGrews point out in detail above.51 This is how events, both secular and religious, are weighted and judged.

But it is not simply the disciples’ transformations and willingness to suffer or die for their newly found faith. Other background factors also need to be considered similarly, such as whether Jesus healed the sick, which is recognized or allowed in some major sense by the vast majority of specialized critical scholars.52 Also, did Jesus claim to forgive sin? Did he make claims that he was deity? Was he a moral teacher, and did he teach an objective ethical code? These and other questions, if they obtain, “raise the stakes” as it were, contributing an array of additional considerations that all factor into the overall question of the background support as to whether Jesus could well be the sort of person who may have been raised from the dead. In the absence of the resurrection evidence, it would not be presumed that, perchance, Jesus just might have been raised too. But in conjunction with that superior resurrection evidence, these additional factors raise the likelihoods even further.53

As the McGrews note, “Each of the salient facts surveyed makes a significant contribution to the case for the resurrection. Taken in conjunction, they provide an overwhelming argument for the conclusion that the resurrection did indeed occur.”54 This is the key contribution of Bayes’ Theorem arguments.

Another consideration is that unlike other religious and political changes, this is the only known example in history where, far from being ungrounded, these transformations would add to the specific assurance that the disciples had actually observed Jesus’s resurrection appearances.55 In short, the appearances caused an exuberance that pointed to real events, though without demonstrating them.

But far from some wish, hope, or dream, the underlying reality for all of this was a series of events that, once they had occurred, was in a way as mundane as any. The evidence was simply there in front of them as they watched their teacher walk, talk, and live. Viewed from this perspective, not only would it have been forcefully demonstrated that the apostles’ best friend and mentor was truly alive, but that at that very moment, it may have seemed as if heaven had entered earth’s domain. Their fondest hopes and desires had been triggered. In Jesus’s presence, eternity had burst in upon them; they had actually witnessed the presence of eternity. Given these circumstances, being assured of heaven seemed rather to be expected! There was evidence for Jesus’s appearances, which has been the emphasis in this study, to which the disciples’ conversions pointed so firmly.56

A Checklist: Data Supporting the Disciples’ Transformations

Throughout this chapter, numerous arguments as well as other supporting considerations have been raised in favor of the thesis that Jesus’s disciples along with other individuals underwent exceptional personal transformations very soon after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. The changes appeared to be sudden and lasting. Strong data contribute compelling arguments that a few of the apostolic leaders were martyred for their beliefs. What factors drove them in this direction? A number of these considerations will be recalled more briefly.57

(1) A baseline scenario helps to outline these overall changes. When Jesus was arrested in the garden, his male disciples fled, followed by Peter denying multiple times that he knew him. From that night until two full days afterward, these men were apparently not going out in public. They were hiding in a state of confusion, bewilderment, and despondency because their master had been unexpectedly and brutally captured, slain, and taken from them.

(2) Then beginning on the third day after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the entire situation reportedly changed quickly and the disciples were never the same afterwards. These followers experienced what they thought were resurrection appearances of their crucified leader on multiple occasions after his death, with Jesus appearing to both individuals as well as to groups, teaching them once again. During these experiences, the disciples were convinced that they had received a commission from the risen Jesus to preach the gospel message, just as he had instructed them earlier in his ministry. It was these experiences that revolutionized the disciples and emboldened them. Understanding the significance of the present and future kingdom inaugurated by Jesus’s preaching plus his resurrection, they were transformed from a downcast state of mind. Since Jesus was alive, they could now withstand any challenge.58

(3) According to critical scholars, James the brother of Jesus most likely believed and converted when he experienced what he also thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus in whom he had not previously believed. This also led to his own transformation, soon becoming the leader of the church in Jerusalem, where he remained for more than thirty years of ministry until his death.

(4) The disciples immediately began proclaiming these occurrences outwardly. The earliest form of their message was termed the homologia, the central gospel proclamation especially of the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ.59 These preaching reports spread widely afterwards, being repeated by canonical and noncanonical Christian sources alike, in addition to later pagan reports.

(5) One especially effective method was spreading the gospel message orally by means of many often formalized, usually brief, creedal traditions that were taught and memorized easily even by those who could neither read nor write. These came in slightly different forms, like the more traditional gospel statements or in the form of the slightly longer Acts sermon summaries. The majority critical view is that the earliest of these creedal traditions were actually pre-Pauline and even formulated before Paul’s conversion, and most certainly before they were recorded later in the Epistles. The very fact that these messages were used and reused throughout the canonical period and afterward is a strong indicator that the word was still going forward. They were sometimes accompanied by the disciples’ enthusiastic proclamation, even in the face of threats and persecution.60

(6) Extraordinarily, a Pharisee and scholar named Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) who had strongly opposed the Christian movement for a couple of years, even imprisoning believers and worse, had an experience about two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. As were his apostolic colleagues before him, Paul likewise was transformed immediately, converting to following Jesus as he began giving eyewitness testimony to his own resurrection experience.

(7) Just three years after his conversion (AD 35–36), Paul visited Jerusalem to inquire of the chief disciples of Jesus, namely, Peter and Jesus’s brother James, who were the leaders of the young movement. Here, just some five to six years after the crucifixion, Paul found that Peter and James were still enthusiastically leading a large Christian congregation in the city.

(8) Multiple early and independent sources, both Christian and non-Christian alike, recorded many of the items being discussed here, such as the disciples abandoning Jesus, Peter’s denials, Jesus’s death by crucifixion, his burial, and of course his appearances. The earliest gospel message of the homologia was also mentioned often, including Jesus’s teachings of his deity. This criterion also applies to Paul’s conversion and most likely to his second trip to Jerusalem to inquire of the earlier apostles, the disciples’ transformations, persecution, and a few of their deaths. Quite incredibly, even according to several of the most skeptical New Testament scholars, some of these events enjoy a source count of anywhere from three to seven different sources each! The variety among these examples include canonical, noncanonical, as well as pagan sources.

(9) Several serious cases of embarrassment are also reported in these texts, such as the unbelief of James the brother of Jesus, the disciples abandoning Jesus for days after proclaiming they would never do so, Peter’s denials, and the crucifixion itself, including Jesus’s cry of forsakenness. Paul’s persecution of believers along with the women being both the first ones to discover the empty tomb and also the first to see the risen Jesus are also telling.

(10) Though more limited for sure since just being counted in another capacity, the about-face by both Paul as well as James, followed by their subsequent enthusiasm, is not only testimony from former unbelievers, but in Paul’s case at least, it serves as enemy attestation. Acts 6:7b likewise represents some rather intriguing testimony from Jewish priests who at least probably included some who were enemies just a short time beforehand, raising questions regarding what they may have known about Jesus!

(11) The early sources also attest that, rather than being of only brief duration, the disciples’ transformations were quite long-lasting, even to the very end of some of their lives. These testimonies and other comments stretch out over a period of at least five to twenty-five years after the crucifixion. Additional accounts concerning the changes in the disciples are related in the last chapters of Matthew, Luke, John, and throughout Acts, including narratives that also potentially extend up to decades after Jesus’s death, ending with these followers still preaching and teaching.61 Very early noncanonical comments regarding the disciples’ faithfulness are also common.62

(12) Personal transformations often do not involve being willing to die for one’s convictions. But there is ample indication that Jesus’s disciples were willing to die for their faith. This conclusion is not derived from simply imputing good intentions to them. These followers repeatedly visited locations where they or others had already been harmed, or where the circumstances dictated a stronger possibility of that occurring. Physical harm often occurred to these believers specifically due to their witness.63

(13) Beyond the disciples being prepared and ready to die for their faith, the martyrdoms of several disciples really did occur. These occasions are recorded in both canonical as well as noncanonical sources.64 As mentioned above, McDowell summarized the results of his dissertation by concluding that the martyrdoms of three apostles were accompanied by the very highest level of probability (Peter, Paul, and James the son of Zebedee), while the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus was determined to be very probable. Thomas was the only other disciple for whom it was concluded that his martyrdom was more probable than not.65

(14) More technical considerations were summarized by philosophers like Swinburne and McGrew, who argued from the use of Bayes’ Theorem, where prior surrounding historical considerations such as the condition of the New Testament text, Jesus’s moral teachings, indications that Jesus taught his deity, plus posterior historical evidence like the female testimony that favored the empty tomb, the disciples’ transformations, and so forth can actually add more probability that the events of Jesus’s resurrection appearances actually happened.

It is definitely not being asserted in this chapter that the disciples’ transformations somehow demonstrated that Jesus rose from the dead. This discussion has been about the disciples’ beliefs as well as their actions, and these both indicated clearly that they believed firmly that they saw appearances of the risen Jesus. But these radically changed beliefs on the part of the disciples do provide some evidential support for their convictions and contentions that they really saw the risen Jesus. When these considerations are combined with other evidences, a strong multifaceted case can continue to be made for Jesus’s appearances, especially in the absence of sustainable naturalistic hypotheses.

As with our other summaries pertaining to the individual minimal facts, a list of primary and secondary arguments has been constructed here, this time for the disciples’ transformations. Beyond the fourteen major considerations in favor of their huge changes, the number of secondary or perhaps somewhat lesser factors that were already included within them will vary among individuals. There may be several possi-bilities for these additional considerations. The primary or subsidiary categories might include or distinguish between a number of issues. For example, should the individual appearances to Mary Magdalene or Peter be counted as separate transformational arguments, such as those of James and Paul? Should the canonical, noncanonical Christian, and pagan source counts be divided into separate points? How about distinctions between the very early creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries? Are there various ways to tabulate events according to separate criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassing details? Though the final figure of the positive, major attesting arguments tabulated here totaled fourteen, various researchers may vary this figure, perhaps by breaking out more or less evidential indications that may be contained or included here.

Conclusion

Therefore, the chief difference between Jesus’s disciples and the majority of persons down through the centuries who have held to the value of various political or religious convictions with differing degrees of tenacity and transformation depends on whether Jesus’s followers actually saw the risen Jesus in some sense. If the followers of Jesus truly believed that they saw Jesus after his death by crucifixion, as maintained here, then their transformations would provide further, contributing evidence for their resurrection beliefs.

Apart from Jesus’s resurrection, however, it might appear that their situations were not substantially distinct from many other persons who have held cherished beliefs but were mistaken. In such a scenario, apart from Jesus’s resurrection and however unique or distinctive some other conditions were regarding the disciples, the initial question in this chapter would still be answered with the basic response that, within religious parameters, their experiences will be considered to some as relatively commonplace.

But once again, the central theme in these volumes is that Jesus’s resurrection truly occurred. As such, that makes all the difference both here as well as elsewhere. So if the disciples did, in fact, actually witness appearances of the risen Jesus, it makes sense that their transformations would account for both their more fortified convictions as well as the exceptional boldness and joy they manifested. As far as is known from the research, no one else has ever witnessed literal, evidenced experiences of this nature regarding a resurrected individual who founded a major world religion with the distinctives that we have been discussing in these chapters.66 Moreover, the attending resurrection conviction that is attested in these ancient sources regarding a personal afterlife would also add another level of both confirmation of the appearances as well as the ministerial application here. Each of these factors provides further impetus to the thoroughness of their transformations.67

So if veridical appearances of Jesus account for the foundation of the disciples’ transformations, this would potentially separate them from all other religious and political metamorphoses that have been based chiefly or even wholly on persons who were convinced that certain ideas were true. Evidenced experiences grounded in empirical observations like these, along with the corresponding transforming beliefs described here, which were specifically reported as being due to the appearances, would carry more conviction than such beliefs alone. In fact, it would be difficult to imagine a more powerful impression than that caused by witnessing resurrection appearances of an individual, especially in the context of the one whose other teachings and actions had the impact that Jesus did.68

For example, if Jesus’s disciples had actually seen and communicated personally with their master after he had been raised from the dead, then their convictions regarding the truth of an afterlife were also based on their personal observations of the risen Jesus and his interactions with them, such as his ongoing teachings. If these scenarios obtained, then we must answer our initial question in this chapter by concluding that the transformations of Jesus’s disciples were truly exceptional and add to the overall likelihood of the event they were proclaiming.69

Notes

1 Compare Mark 14:50, 66–72; Matt 26:56, 69–75; Luke 22:56–66; John 18:25–27.

2 See Acts 2:41–47; 4:1–4, 8–21, 29–35; 5:17–32, 40–42. For their willingness to die, see John 21:18–19; Acts 7:57–60; 12:1–3; 21:13; 25:11.

3 Ancient secular references appear regarding both early Christian beliefs and martyrdom in Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Pliny’s Letters to Emperor Trajan (Ep. 97) along with Emperor Trajan’s reply to Pliny (Ep. 98); Josephus’s disputed paragraph in Ant. 18.3.3, along with Mara bar Serapion’s letter to his son.

4 Early instances of Christian testimonies are recorded by Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 19.1–5), Ignatius (Smyrn. 1.9–12), and Barn. 4.10–17.

5 Clement provides an early first-century reference to the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul (1 Clem. 3.10–15). Polycarp mentions Paul and other disciples, with the context applying to their martyrdoms (Phil. 9). Differing versions of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, are related by Josephus (Ant. 20.9.1) and Hegesippus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23), with Josephus usually being preferred. Eusebius likewise relates that James (the son of Zebedee and the brother of John), as well as Peter and Paul, all died for their faith (Hist. eccl. 2.9, 25). While not involving the apostles, two Roman sources also contribute information here that is not as well known. Historian Tacitus describes “an immense multitude” of believers who were killed in Rome, being “torn” by beasts, “nailed to crosses” and crucified, or being lit on fire as torches in the night. Tacitus adds that though the Roman people did not appreciate the Christians, “there arose a feeling of compassion” for them due to the atrocities committed against them (Ann. 15.44). Later in his career as the Roman governor in Asia Minor (Bithynia), Pliny the Younger’s account is quite explicit. He reports to Emperor Tiberius that some of those accused of being Christians denied ever having been believers and “repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue . . . and even reviled the name of Christ.” However, rather incredibly, Pliny concedes that “there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances.” The Christians’ practice was to meet on a particular day before dawn “and [address] a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath . . . never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust” and “to eat in common a harmless meal.” Then Pliny tells the story of “putting two female slaves to the torture” but only heard more of their “extravagant superstition.” Pliny also reported that these beliefs affected “persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes.” “In fact, this contagious superstition . . . has spread its infection among the neighboring villages and country,” See Pliny, Ep. 97. However, Emperor Trajan responds by instructing Pliny, “Do not go out of your way to look for them.” If the person denies that they are a Christian and responds by “invoking our gods,” then that person should “be pardoned upon his repentance.” Pliny should not accept anonymous information to prosecute the believers. But when cases were brought before him and “the crime is proved, they must be punished.” See Pliny, Ep. 98.

6 Such as Mark 3:20–22, 31–35; 6:1–6; John 7:1–5.

7 For discussion and critical support at this point, see chapter 13 in this volume, on James’s conversion.

8 A description of an appearance to James is found in the fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews 7, which John Dominic Crossan dates to the 50s; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 428–29, 436 (see chap. 6, n. 44), while Darrell L. Bock dates this text to perhaps the mid-second century; see Bock, The Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

9 For some such as Dale C. Allison,. Resurrection of Jesus, 46–60 (see chap. 2, n. 15), this may raise the question of why Mary Magdalene (John 20:10–18; pseudo-Mark 16:9–11) as well as Peter (1 Cor 15:5a; Luke 24:34) are not singled out as are James and Paul regarding their appearances of Jesus. The decision here was based on the distinctiveness of James as a family member and likely skeptical unbeliever and Paul as a church-persecuting unbeliever before they met the risen Jesus, unlike the other two Jesus followers. Still, some may indeed decide to count Mary Magdalene or Peter as separate major or minor arguments for the disciples’ transformations, as both of these cases are multiply attested, and at least Peter’s experience has very early backup; hence their being highly rated even by critical scholars such as both Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. See Crossan, Historical Jesus, 435–36; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450, 452–54, 478–79, 568 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

10 Rom 14:8; 1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 4:7–14; 11:23–32; Phil 1:20–24; cf. 2 Pet 1:13–15.

11 Such as Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4–6; 1 Cor 15:9; cf. Acts 9:1–2, 21; 22:3–5; 26:9–11.

12 These examples include 1 Cor 9:5–6; 15:11–19; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10; Acts 7:54–60; 15:1–35.

13 Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10; cf. Acts 15:1–29.

14 Mark 14:54, 66–72; Matt 26:58, 69–75; Luke 22:54–62; John 18:15–18, 25–27.

15 For examples from Mark, see 8:31–33; 9:30–32; 10:32–34; 14:27–31.

16 Whether it was Peter himself whom Jesus was addressing, or the denial spoken of by Peter, or both, much has been written about these words. This does not need to be resolved here, except to emphasize further the doubly embarrassing point from the disciples to Jesus and from Jesus back to Peter. See F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 146–49.

17 Gal 1:13–14, 21–24; Phil 3:4–6; cf. Acts 9:1–2, 13–14, 26; 22:3–5; 26:9–12.

18 For example, Paul’s prior persecution of Christians initially drew suspicion, causing many early believers to be reluctant to fellowship with him (Gal 1:23; Acts 9:13–14, 21, 26).

19 For just one example of doctoral research on this assertion, see Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (Surrey: Ashgate, 2015), 9–11, 243, 259–65.

20 These include most notably a few works by Candida Moss: The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), chap. 1; Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions, Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), conclusion, particularly 167; The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperCollins, 2013), 13–21, 81, 136–37. For examples from the latter volume here, Moss complains that “Christians were not constantly persecuted, hounded, or targeted by the Romans” (14), and martyrdom accounts could be fabricated especially in later centuries (15–16). Moreover, Christians “like to think of their martyrs as unique” (17). Also, martyrdom accounts “cannot be used as evidence for the truth of Christianity” (137). Some of Moss’s complaints are really stretched, as if one more question mark would indicate a small victory! But many responses have been made to her types of objections. For an example, see McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, 3, 7–15, 260–65. Because some Christian authors may assert items that are incorrect or exaggerated does not by any means disprove all Christian claims, especially when Moss’s points have long been conceded by believers. For example, it is well-known that Roman persecution was rather sporadic in the first century, being both harsher as well as more common much later. For instance, Emperor Trajan replies to Governor Pliny that the indiscriminate killing of Christians could introduce “a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age,” yet punishment would still need to be enacted for clear cases (Pliny, Ep. 98). Of course martyrdom cases could be fabricated, but this was far more likely in later centuries, as Moss notes herself. Further, her complaint is far from requiring that all the accounts are fake, especially when they are witnessed or recorded in good sources. Often we must build on what data are known rather than sounding as if a few questions will invalidate the Christian’s entire enterprise here. Moreover, not only did our present chapter open with references to cases of transformation and martyrdom from outside of Christendom, but similar comments have been made in many publications long before any of Moss’s major volumes were published. The chief point in this study is certainly not that willing martyrdom by itself proves events such as Jesus’s resurrection, but that the plethora of early cases where we have good reports indicate that the disciples and others truly believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. That must be accounted for since we do have very strong information from those who actually claimed to have seen Jesus and were not lying. Many arguments serve as cogs in the overall case here, and the stronger data in particular must be explained, especially when the great majority of very critical scholars, even those who reject the resurrection of Jesus, recognize the strength of these facts. A number of Moss’s charges are not being denied or questioned here. But if she wishes to challenge the resurrection appearances of Jesus at the very heart of Christianity, she will have to do a great deal more. And some Christians do indeed think there are martyrdom cases that are very special if not unique. There could very well be reasons to make this claim, even though this is a piece of the pie rather than the entire pie itself. But some Christian martyrdom cases are strong, though the overall case in these volumes is much more nuanced. The last matter of Jesus’s appearances will be addressed further in these volumes.

21 A critical scholar could object that early Christians naturally would want these witnesses to be placed in the best light. But we saw that that is precisely what did not occur in many of the examples raised above, including several embarrassing accounts plus arguments between the early leaders. Further, Josephus has no reason to present the relevant data that he does when he recorded the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.

22 Although there is no convincing argument indicating that Ignatius was a student of an apostle, as may have been the case with Papias, Ignatius probably wrote exceptionally soon after the close of the apostolic era, including the availability of the early reports. See the even-handed treatment by Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 248 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

23 Ignatius wrote: “Let me be given to the wild beasts. . . . Rather entice the wild beasts that they may become my sepulcher. . . . I may be found a sacrifice to God. . . . I will entice them that they may devour me promptly. . . . Come . . . wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body. . . . Only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ” (Ign. Rom. 4–5)

24 Peter Morrall, “Murder and Society: Why Commit Murder?,” Centre for Crime and Justice Studies 60 (2006–2007): 36–37, especially the conclusion concerning the data available on the devastating effects on family and friends.

25 For critical agreement at numerous points here, see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–31 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167 (see chap. 6, n. 173); J. Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” Études 356 (1982): 536–37; Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 52, 92–94, 102 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450–54, 568; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 85, 88, 96, 125, 129 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Shanks and Witherington, Brother of Jesus, 26–27 (Shanks), 106–9, 215 (Witherington) (see chap. 6, n. 166); Funk, Honest to Jesus, esp. 270 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 46–47 (see chap. 1, n. 42); John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 192, 197–99; Willi Marxsen, Jesus and Easter: Did God Raise the Historical Jesus from the Dead?, trans. Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 66; Hengel, Atonement, 65 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Elliott, “First Easter,” 210, 215, 218 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 96 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (New York: Scribner, 1994), 89, 96; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 11, 276–80 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Hugh Jackson, “The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy,” Journal of Religion 55 (1975): 419–22; Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 1979, 8 (see chap. 6, n. 129).

26 Besides the above texts that comment on these matters, the relevant New Testament passages claim it was the resurrection appearances that provided the impetus for the disciples’ metamorphosis. The Gospel writers tell us that the risen Jesus commanded his followers to preach and teach his message (Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–53; pseudo-Mark 16:15–20). Subsequently, the apostolic proclamation focused on the resurrection message (Acts 4:2; 4:33), as the discussion below indicates.

27 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 231 (see chap. 5, n. 43). The comment also appears in Ehrman, New Testament, 253 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

28 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230. In the quotation above, Ehrman also affirms in the ellipsis that “women from their group went to anoint Jesus’ body for burial and found it missing.” Ehrman, New Testament, 230. This portion was deleted because Ehrman later changed his view on the empty tomb in How Jesus Became God, 7, 142, 151, 164–69, 173–74, 184–86.

29 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:85–86 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

30 Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 60 (see chap. 2, n. 48).

31 Johnson, Living Jesus, 6 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

32 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 659 (see excursus 1, n. 65).

33 Hurtado, How on Earth, 34, see also 4–5, 29–30, 34–38 (see also chap. 9, n. 32). For further details on the nature of this appearance to Paul, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 71–72, 170, 547–48 (see excursus 1, n. 95).

34 A few of these scholars include Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 61–62, and Resurrecting Jesus, 200, 298 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 108–9, 131–34, 174; John Dominic Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33–34, 38 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 27, 135, 209 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, esp. 184–85 (see chap. 2, n. 32); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 47; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864–70; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 89–98 (see chap. 10, n. 17); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 268–69, 307–8 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 215–17 (chap. 1, n. 44); Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:251–52 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Spong, Easter Moment, 197–99; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, particularly 317–29 (see chap. 6, n. 44); C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Expository Times 101 (1990): 169; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, vol. 2 of Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 489–90; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 321 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 186–87 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Francis Watson, “‘Historical Evidence’ and the Resurrection of Jesus,” Theology 90 (1987): 366; Grant, Saint Peter, 96.

35 Lowell Streiker, Mind-Bending (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984).

36 Of course, another’s mental state will virtually never be known fully. On the other hand, whether or not the cause appears warranted in terms of other religious claims may be included or judged to the best of our abilities in a number of these instances. Then if empirical, rational, or a combination of evidences are being proclaimed, the actual data may be examined further.

37 In the conclusion of his own lengthy study on this topic done originally as a PhD dissertation, Sean McDowell summarized his finding regarding the twelve original apostles plus the additional apostles Paul and James the brother of Jesus (with Matthias being included instead of Judas Iscariot), thus totaling fourteen men in number. McDowell’s summarized results were that the martyrdoms of only three apostles were judged to have the very highest level of probability (Peter, Paul, and James the son of Zebedee), while the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus was thought to be very probable. The martyrdom of only one other member, Thomas, was thought to have been more probable than not. Death at the hands of others was judged to be improbable in the case of John the son of Zebedee. The remaining eight apostles—Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias—were given some variety of a “plausible” rating, with the most common judgment being “as plausible as not.” In sum, then, the martyrdoms of four apostles were thought to be very probable or higher, one was ranked as just probable, while the remaining eight were accorded only low likelihoods of martyrdom, judging as far as can be known from the available data. See McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, with charts on 263–64. Of course, other apostles beyond the initial five who were judged to be very probable to some degree could also have been martyred. That is not being denied. It is just being said that McDowell thought these were the ones where there was some accompanying data that could potentially be examined. Other relevant sources include Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962); James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1995); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2004); Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, eds., The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); G. W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); John R. Claypool, The First to Follow: The Apostles of Jesus (Harrisburg, NY: Morehouse, 2008); Marie-Émile Boismard, Le martyre de Jean l’apôtre (Pende: Gabalda, 1996).

38 About the time the Third Quest for the historical Jesus was beginning, this issue was the subject of an intense German debate. In his earlier work, German historian and theologian Rudolf Pesch opposed the vast majority of scholars by arguing that Jesus’s teachings had prepared his disciples sufficiently for his death, and that was enough to lead to their concluding in some sense that Jesus had conquered death. See Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu,” Theologische Quartalschrift 153 (1973): 201–28. But after years of discussion, debate, and critique by a number of influential scholars such as Martin Hengel, Peter Stuhlmacher, Walter Kaspar, and Jacob Kremer, Pesch changed his position, holding that the Easter visions were necessary for the disciples’ mission, being fully convinced that Jesus had been raised from the dead; see Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versach,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 30 (1983): 73–98.

39 In spite of this comment, this does not determine the issue of the appearances once and for all. Questions concerning how Jesus appeared, whether these events can be explained naturally, and a host of other potential subjects remain to be resolved here and in the next volume of this study.

40 As Wright notes, the same point could be made concerning failed Jewish messianic leaders; see Resurrection of the Son of God, 700.

41 Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” Religious Studies 25 (1989): 167–77.

42 Moss, Myth of Persecution, 17.

43 As Moss asserts on 137.

44 For instances, see Gary R. Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 3–4, 8, 10, esp. 30 (see chap. 2, n. 33); Habermas, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview. Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 196, 198.

45 Such as 1 Cor 9:1; 15:3–8, 11; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10.

46 On the application of Bayes’ Theorem specifically to the possibility of Jesus’s appearances having occurred, see Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate (see chap. 7, n. 18).

47 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, such as the specific explanations for weighing prior evidence, particularly parts 2 and 3, such as the thoughts on pages 2–3, 9–10, 15–17.

48 See Timothy and Linda McGrew’s argument in “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012), 597–644, esp. 609–16, 622–25, 641–42.

49 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, esp. 230–32.

50 Habermas, “Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” 196.

51 From this added perspective, these thoughts describe further why the disciples’ transformations to the point of being willing to suffer and die for their convictions makes this consideration one of the minimal facts.

52 For two of the superior and lengthy critical treatments of this subject, see Meier, Marginal Jew, particularly 2:967–70; and Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328–30 (see chap. 1, n. 30). It should be noted that none of these authors here think historians can actually determine if Jesus performed supernatural events of this nature, but rather, that events described in the Gospels as healings did occur. See Meier, 2:661, 968; Twelftree, 317, but compare 330; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 261.

53 Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, chaps. 2–3; McGrew and McGrew, “Argument from Miracles,” 630–31.

54 McGrew and McGrew, 630.

55 Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” see the conclusion in particular.

56 For a detailed discussion on the relation of Jesus’s resurrection to eternal life, see Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chaps. 1–7.

57 Further specific details were provided earlier in this chapter. Naturalistic and other alternative considerations are treated in the next volume of this study.

58 As expressed in John 11:25; 1 Thess 4:13; 1 Pet 1:3–4, and elsewhere.

59 For an excellent treatment here, see Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, most particularly 11–12, 20–21, and 140–46 for the major summaries.

60 See Acts 4:2–4, 19–20; 5:29–32, 40–42; Rom 15:13; 1 Pet 1:3–9 for examples.

61 Such passages include Acts 4:13–20, 31; 5:29–33, 40–41; Gal 1:18–2:10; 1 Cor 9:5; 15:11–15; Eph 2:20; Heb 2:3; 1 Pet 4:13–17; 2 Pet 3:2.

62 See 1 Clem. 42, 47; Ign. Eph. 12; Rom. 4; Phil. 5; Pol. Phld. 3, 9; Papias, Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, frgs. 3, 5, 6 (as enumerated in the 1891 Lightfoot edition from Macmillan); Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1; cf. 18.3.3.

63 Key indications of this willingness come from reports such as Acts 4:2, 18–20, 31; 5:29–32; 14:19–20; 16:22–24; 27:13–40, including many personal details of physical harm occurring, being provided mostly by Paul (1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 4:8–12; 11:23–33; Phil 1:20–24; 2 Pet 1:12–14; cf. Heb 12:2).

64 In Acts, these incidents included the deaths of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:1–2) as well as Stephen, one of the members of the “Seven” subleaders of the church (Acts 7:54–60). In John, Jesus predicts the martyrdom of Peter (John 21:18–19; cf. 2 Pet 1:13–15). On the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, see 1 Clem. 5; Pol. Phil. 9. On the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, see Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1. As mentioned already, though without discussing Jesus’s disciples, Pliny rather incredibly concedes concerning his torturing of believers that “there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances” (Ep. 97).

65 McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, 263–64.

66 Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions,” 167–77.

67 See the earlier references in this chapter to Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, as well as the McGrews’ case in “Argument from Miracles,” for a further unpacking of similar reasoning.

68 Even apart from potential resurrection appearances, Stephen Neill notes the singular nature of Jesus’s teachings for us once again, especially regarding both God and himself: “Jesus is not the least like anyone else who has ever lived. The things that he says about God are not the same as the sayings of any other religious teacher. The claims that he makes for himself are not the same as those that have been made by any other religious teacher.” See Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths, 233 (see chap. 8, n. 102).

69 Not to get ahead of ourselves here, but it is relevant simply to mention that in the New Testament, the single belief that is said to result from Jesus’s resurrection is that believers would be raised from the dead like Jesus—another transformational belief in itself. But this comment awaits our further treatment in another of these volumes.

13

Minimal Fact 5: The Conversion of James

The fifth of our minimal facts is that, according to the majority of recent scholars, James the brother of Jesus became a believer because, like Saul (Paul) of Tarsus later, he also had a real experience after Jesus’s crucifixion that he too thought was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. Following the two major steps regarding each of our minimal facts arguments, we will first survey a number of the major critical arguments that favor this assertion, followed by a survey of major scholars who accept the historicity of these data. We will also consider the evaluations of two recent researchers who disagree with the majority view on the question of whether or not James was a believer before witnessing the risen Jesus.

Historical Arguments

Early testimony reports that James was an unbeliever during at least some of Jesus’s public ministry. Mark’s Gospel, usually dated about thirty to forty years after the crucifixion, states that on one occasion when Jesus returned to his home area, some members of the crowd charged that he had gone mad (exestē). Subsequently, his family heard this complaint and responded by attempting to restrain Jesus, apparently somewhat in agreement with the crowd (3:20–21). Some scribes suggested that he was casting out demons by the power of Satan himself, prompting a response by Jesus (3:22–30). Mark then reports that Jesus’s mother and family were waiting for him, prompting Jesus’s response that those who obediently followed him were his family members (3:31–35).

In another incident in Jesus’s hometown, the townspeople cited their knowledge of Jesus’s family members as the reason for their being offended because of him (kai eskandalizonto en autōi, Mark 6:1–6). In general, the reference was not positive in any sense. Apparently, familiarity caused the lack of respect and unbelief. A couple of key insights here are that while the accusation came from the people, Jesus’s response regarding prophets being without honor in their own hometown specifically included the term “relatives” (Greek root sungeneus, “kin”) in 6:4, followed by his expressing his amazement at the evident unbelief (kai ethaumasen dia tēn apistian autōn).

Larry Hurtado remarks here that “the attitude of Jesus’ family . . . is to be seen as a response like that of these critics.” However, “Mark presents them both as wrong responses to Jesus.”1 Further, though we are not told in 3:31–32 exactly what Jesus’s family members desired, Hurtado adds that since they wanted to “take charge of him” in 3:21, it must therefore be assumed that “their intent here is no doubt the same—that is, this is not simply a friendly visit from relatives!” This makes the most sense of Jesus’s response concerning them and his claim that those who truly followed him were his family.2

R. T. France points out that the traditional meaning of this text that Jesus’s family members objected to his teachings and actions is so “uncomfortable” and embarrassing that alternate interpretations are not surprising. However, these further, seemingly more positive proposals often do violence to the best sense of the Greek wording as well, such that the resulting notions make the remaining meaning of the text rather difficult. Therefore, when Mark 3:20–21 is taken together with 3:31–35, the conclusion seems to follow, requiring the difficult understanding that Jesus’s mother, brothers, and sisters agreed with the popular criticism of the crowd, that Jesus had “flipped” and hence he needed to be removed from the situation “for his own sake and for the family’s reputation.”3 For France, the “traditional” view of Mark 3 is roughly that at least James and Jesus’s other brothers were unbelievers during these times.4 Mark’s early recording here is our beginning affirmation that something was amiss with Jesus’s family members.

The tradition of at least James’s unbelief during Jesus’s ministry is also attested by multiple sources. Besides Mark, in John’s Gospel, when Jesus was in Galilee and the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was approaching in Judea, Jesus’s brothers suggested he attend the festival so that the people there could witness the works (i.e., miracles) which he was doing (John 7:1–4). But in John’s parenthetical comment here, he indicates that “not even his brothers believed in him” (oude gar hoi adelphoi autou episteuon eis auton, 7:5).

Once again this difficult theme emerges. Although his mother and brothers may have followed along at least occasionally with Jesus and his disciples (John 2:12), this seems not to have been a lasting situation. In John 2:3–5, Mary and the brothers desired that Jesus perform some miracles. As Craig Keener points out, “John specifically attributes their request for Jesus’s open revelation to unbelief (7:5).” This is an intriguing contrast with Jesus’s disciples, who did not wish for Jesus to go into the region of Judea for his own sake (11:8). At any rate, the comparison here in context may well be that Jesus’s brothers were at least somewhat like those former followers of Jesus who had withdrawn (apēlthon eis ta opisō) and just recently left him (ouketi met’ autou periepatoun, 7:66).5

One other passage should be mentioned here, namely, John 19:25–27. During his crucifixion, it is narrated that Jesus noticed his mother standing near the cross along with some other women and committed her to the care of the beloved disciple who was also present, who responded by caring for Jesus’s mother from that time onward. The point is often made that, as the eldest son, Jesus was duty bound to take care of this crucial matter. Especially in ancient Jewish culture, this incident could signify a very meaningful obligation that had now been completed. Alternate suggestions have also been made. Among these proposals is that Jesus knew his brothers had not followed him and he wanted a believer to care for his mother. This could especially be the case in light of John’s earlier acknowledgment of this reality (John 7:5). On this view, James and the other siblings would still not have joined the disciples and other believers.6

So with both Mark and John providing independent accounts and affirmation of James the brother of Jesus being an unbeliever at least on these occasions during Jesus’s ministry, there exists both an early record and multiple sources for this truth. This is the dual testimony which accounts chiefly for contemporary critical scholars who comment on the matter and almost unanimously draw these conclusions.

Almost needless to say, the incidents with Jesus’s family members in Mark 3 plus John 7 and the townspeople in Mark 6, are exceptionally awkward and humiliating, even doubly so. As France notes, the uncomfortable and embarrassing nature of these occasions spawned the inevitable attempts from scholars who wished to explain the reports otherwise, even if these suggestions did not best account for the language and frequently invoked additional conundrums and near contradictions in the process!7 Certainly, the aftereffects of the pastor of the later Jerusalem church having had numerous occasions to witness Jesus’s teaching and mighty works while still refusing to believe is another uncomfortable angle too. There is no shortage here of troublesome but honest reports.

Some limited eyewitness observations may also bear on these considerations. For instance, a recent survey of a broad cross section of contemporary critical New Testament scholars revealed that a majority considered Mark to be the original author of the Gospel that bears his name, with about half of that total opting for Papias’s early tradition that the apostle Peter was Mark’s chief source for the observations.8 The extent to which these results may have a bearing on our passages here is difficult to say without further research. But these results are significant, particularly when the comments regarding the rather extreme judgment by the members of Jesus’s family are possibly acknowledged by other authorities like Peter, who would presumably not take such things lightly.

Moreover, Keener (supported by other scholars with similar comments) reports, “Early eyewitness tradition indicates that John son of Zebedee, with whose tradition, at least, most scholars associate this Gospel, once shared leadership in the conservative Jerusalem church with both Peter and James; Gal 2:9.”9 As with the comment on Mark, this hardly determines the Gospel texts to which such conclusions might apply, but it at least raises a few possibilities. Again, this is particularly so when it is considered that the clear, straightforward judgment by John regarding the unbelief of Jesus’s brothers would hardly have been recorded without good reason when James had already served very well as the leader of the Jerusalem church and had long before died as a martyr by the time this last canonical Gospel was written.

Further, the pre-Pauline creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7 lists Jesus as having appeared to James (15:7a). This material, as noted elsewhere in this study, is often dated as being before Paul’s conversion, including even by the Jesus Seminar.10 If so, this traditional information would have originated a mere year or so at most after the crucifixion! It is exceptionally seldom dated as later than the mid-30s even by additional skeptical researchers. Hence, the appearance to James is recorded about as early as anything could be in the early church. A key question, of course, is whether James became a believer before or after the resurrection. The majority of scholars think that his conversion was due to Jesus’s appearance to him.11 Also, one of the fragments of the second-century Gospel to the Hebrews depicts a brief narrated story of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his brother James as they broke bread together.12 James is described as looking forward to sharing the cup with the risen Jesus when Jesus appears and shares it with him. But it is difficult to know the provenance of these fragments.13

Additionally, concerning the comment above regarding Paul’s trips to Jerusalem in Galatians 1–2, the near eyewitness interview data gathered by Paul in his discussions with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, is crucial.14 Besides multiple attestation of independent sources, another criterion is that of multiple forms, such as the Gospel sources and Acts, the noncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews along with Paul’s Epistles, plus the reference by Josephus the historian. These combined writings mark the intervals all the way from James’s rather strong pre-crucifixion doubt, to his appearance from the risen Jesus, to his presence in Jerusalem after the appearances (Acts 1:14), to Paul’s two meetings with the two apostles in Jerusalem and his leadership there (cf. Acts 15:1–31), to his martyrdom in AD 62 (Ant. 20.9.1). While this information does not answer the question of the precise timing regarding James’s earlier unbelief, it definitely provides a few hints, referencing James’s earlier life, Jesus’s appearance, James’s leadership and recognition by others in that capacity in Jerusalem, followed years later by his persecution and death.

So, when coupled together with the pre-Pauline creedal material in 1 Cor 15:3–7, along with the ultimate sacrifice of James’s life in the same city about fifteen years after Paul’s second visit to the city, we have here a veritable timeline of sources that outline the key events in James’s life. So there is very early eyewitness material, plus independent attestation from multiple sources in addition to other indications of reliable data like multiple forms. But a very precise answer on whether or not James was a believer when Jesus appeared to him is one of the missing pieces in this discussion.

The criterion of coherence or contextual credibility is also apparent here. Though there are only a limited number of resurrection appearance accounts, there are still several intriguing passages where the doubt or even the disbelief of individuals is expressed. These would include the disciples themselves or those who were present with them (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:36–43; pseudo-Mark 16:11, 13, 14), or the challenges of declared unbelievers, such as possibly Thomas (John 20:24–29), Paul (1 Cor 15:8–9), or a large number of Jewish priests (Acts 6:7). On these occasions (except for the last one), the doubters were provided with evidence of Jesus’s resurrection that often produced assurance or actually caused them to become believers due to the resurrection appearances. So at least in principle, if James had become a believer due to such an appearance, this would be anything but strange. It would be quite consistent with the other examples.

So these considerations above seem to indicate that members of Jesus’s family, and his brothers in particular, doubted his ministry in general and, more specifically, several particular aspects of his claims and teachings. It is also known that James became a strong believer and leader in the early church at a later date, even becoming what might be thought of as the pastor of the large body of believers located in Jerusalem, where ultimately he died as a martyr for his ardent Christian faith.

Among the majority of researchers across the scholarly spectrum who comment on the matter, the predominant view is that James became a believer because of Jesus’s resurrection, and most likely through Jesus’s personal appearance to him in particular, as per the very early tradition in 1 Cor 15:7a. For the mainstream, this has been the most likely option.

We will turn now to these scholarly testimonies, once again concentrating on the more skeptical members of the community. This move is made to both gain a broader cross section of views and to survey the perspectives of those who generally do not accept the historicity of the resurrection at all, though still concluding that this remained what James believed was the nature of his experience.15

Scholarly Assessments

The number of critical scholars who have weighed in on the cause of James’s conversion is not as large as those who have commented on the other minimal facts,16 as also noted elsewhere.17 Yet, as Licona recognizes so well, “There is significant heterogeneity within this group that includes atheists, agnostics, cynics, revisionists, moderates and conservatives.”18 As with Licona’s list, some of the more radical voices will be presented first. The smaller number of commentators here may be due to James being a slightly more obscure figure in the early church than Paul, Peter, or John, with fewer verses pertaining to his testimony and situation. This hardly meant that James had any less influence in the church, least of all in Jerusalem. However, like the other minimal facts, there are very few dissident voices on the other side either, probably due to the strong data in this category.

One atheist New Testament scholar who shares the majority view here is Gerd Lüdemann, for whom the appearance to James in 1 Cor 15:7a is a reliable creedal statement indicating that James had some sort of a visual experience of his brother. This occurrence led to his conversion.19 Ehrman likewise thinks that James claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, leading to his conversion.20

At least three additional members of the Jesus Seminar (since Lüdemann became a member of this group as well) apparently acknowledge a number of these circumstances as well. Cofounder Robert W. Funk thinks it fits the known facts that Jesus’s mother and four brothers were all originally skeptics but only later “became part of the Christian movement.”21 Roy W. Hoover acknowledges that James was not a follower of Jesus in Galilee but joined the movement later, after believing he also saw the risen Jesus.22 For John Dominic Crossan, James the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62, but in the Gospel of Thomas when the disciples asked Jesus who would be their leader after he was gone, Jesus indicated that they should follow James the Just.23

Several Jewish scholars have also concluded that James joined the early Christian movement as a convert to Christianity after he believed that he had also witnessed an appearance of the risen Jesus. After this occurrence he quickly arose to become a leader or coleader of the young church in Jerusalem.24

Other skeptical voices in this general camp have likewise expressed similar views. For instance, in a chapter titled “James—From Critical Sibling to Ardent Worshiper,” John Shelby Spong asserts, “We can be certain of the fact that the brothers of Jesus were not impressed, were not followers of Jesus during his lifetime. They were scoffers, cynics, suspicious of Jesus’ sanity. But something happened. . . . Look at James before Easter. Look at James after Easter. What caused a change that was this dramatic?”25 Elsewhere, Spong comments that the James listed in 1 Cor 15:7 “was surely the James identified in Gal. 1:19 as ‘the brother of the Lord’” who “was a leader of the Christian church who exercised great authority.” This promotion “demands some kind of explanation.”26 However, for Spong, what happened was not externally measurable; it did not happen in space, time, or in history, nor was it connected to an empty tomb, and no one else shared James’s experience in any objective way. The new conviction really cannot be described, though it changed him completely.27

Four more skeptical New Testament scholars also should be mentioned here. Hans Conzelmann thinks that James’s position in the early church was due to a resurrection appearance of Jesus, noting that this event is frequently thought to account for James’s conversion.28 A. J. M. Wedderburn quite often identifies his own view as being agnostic toward any actual resurrection event, thereby ruling out any historical path to this occurrence.29 He agrees that the texts apparently state “that James and other members of Jesus’ family did not believe in him during his ministry.”30 Seemingly, “their view of him and his activities was an unfavorable one.”31 Yet shortly after an experience believed to be that of the risen Jesus, “James clearly played a leading role in the early church in Jerusalem.”32

Moreover, Dale C. Allison, referring to himself as a “cryptic Deist,”33 comments that “presumably James, the brother of Jesus, was not a believer before Easter [Mark 3:21, 31–34; John 7:5] but only after he had an encounter with the risen Lord [1 Cor 15:7].”34 Identifying himself as a non-Christian agnostic, Maurice Casey agrees that Paul, Peter, and James achieved major leadership roles in the early church, noting the visions that each of these prominent men accepted as being actual appearances from the risen Jesus.35

A considerable number of other skeptical scholars also could be adduced for these important data regarding James’s prior unbelief and his later experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.36 This testimony could be extended quite a long way further to many moderate and conservative researchers as well.

For N. T. Wright, in all likelihood James did not follow Jesus during his public ministry. But commenting on the recorded appearances of Jesus, Wright attests, “It is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus.”37 In quite a similar and hard-hitting comment, Reginald H. Fuller proclaims that, not having been a disciple of Jesus before the crucifixion, “it might be said that if there were no record of an appearance to James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament we should have to invent one to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.” The importance of this event is that it “betokened his conversion.”38

Numerous German scholars have weighed in on these subjects as well. Wolfhart Pannenberg joins the large majority of critical scholars who note that what we know of James indicates he was not a disciple in the earliest stages of the church but joined the growing community of believers in Jerusalem where the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to him apparently occurred.39 Noting the “historical core” of the underlying appearance tradition, Ulrich Wilckens argues that “the vision of James cannot be contested on any convincing grounds.”40 Based on texts such as Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, Peter Stuhlmacher notes that James “did not belong to the followers of Jesus when he was on the earth, but distanced himself in unbelief from his brother. It was the appearance of the risen and uplifted Christ which first made him into a respected member of the church in Jerusalem, and, after Peter’s departure, to its (second) head.” He was stoned for his views in AD 62.41

John P. Meier treats these questions in much detail, stating that the appropriate texts in Mark 3 and John 7 make it not only highly unlikely that the unbelief of Jesus’s family was contrived, but rather that it was apparently quite well-known in the early church. Further, this is the best explanation for the crucifixion scene in the Gospel of John where, during his crucifixion, Jesus commits his mother to the beloved apostle instead of to a brother.42

E. P. Sanders starts two of his works by providing lists of more or less secure historical facts that may be known regarding Jesus’s life. Pertaining to James, “It is noteworthy that Jesus’s family were not followers” of Jesus. Most of the data are negative,43 such as “the brothers of the Lord are emphatically excluded from Jesus’ own followers in the Gospel accounts.”44 “Yet after the resurrection, Jesus’s mother and brothers joined the disciples and the women followers in prayer (Acts 1:14), and some of Jesus’ brothers, notably James, became leaders of the early church.”45 According to 1 Cor 15:7, “James had a separate resurrection experience, and presumably this accounts for his commitment to the early Christian movement.”46 Years later, James died as a martyr.47

For Thorwald Lorenzen, the early, accredited list of Jesus’s resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians included two individuals, Paul and James, who were not believers before these events. But beyond evidence alone, these appearances constituted “the call to faith and mission . . . a call to radical discipleship.”48

Conservative critical scholars have also weighed in on James’s initial unbelief, the resurrection appearance of Jesus to him, and his subsequent position of commitment, leadership, and faith. Theologian George Eldon Ladd agrees with the foregoing comments in that “it is highly probable that it was this [resurrection] experience which made James a believer.” After his conversion, “James the brother of Jesus suddenly emerges as the central figure in the Jerusalem community.”49 Like the ideas of several other thinkers, historical theologian Thomas C. Oden comments that James was one of the relatives of Jesus who rejected belief in him before the resurrection, so it becomes incumbent on us to explain the huge change that occurred after Jesus’s appearance to him.50

In an exceptionally balanced and insightful treatment, New Testament scholar Michael Licona evaluates James’s situation quite carefully. While still judging that the New Testament texts are more than clear on a number of fronts that James and his family members had serious doubts and even unbelief that blurred their fair perception and evaluation of Jesus, Licona pulls back from a full endorsement of this situation as the highest of bedrock facts due to the possibility that James may have converted before Jesus’s appearance.51 As philosopher William Lane Craig points out quite succinctly, “Given James’s antipathy to Jesus during his lifetime and his leadership of the church thereafter, it seems very plausible that his turnabout was due to a resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.”52

New Testament scholar Grant R. Osborne states that James the brother of Jesus “was not a believer during Jesus’ earthly life (Mark 3:21f.; John 7:5), yet he later became the leader of the Jerusalem Church.”53 Also favoring the view that James was an unbeliever when Jesus appeared to him is philosopher Stephen T. Davis.54 Lastly, scholar and pastor Eugene H. Peterson draws the same conclusion, namely, that James’s life changed significantly from an unbeliever to a believer because he had seen his brother returned from the dead.55

It has already been mentioned that the critical support for James’s case lacks slightly when compared to the outstanding plethora of information available for the other minimal facts. This slight lack is particularly the case when comparing the volume of research agreement available for the other events. Regarding James, scholars sometimes are more likely to employ greater nuance by using terms such as presumably and seemingly. Yet as has been witnessed in this chapter, there is still a very strong critical affirmation of the facts all the way across the critical spectrum from atheist to conservative scholars from within the various areas of relevant research. This indicates that the underlying data here are quite strong, even while the scholarly agreement remains very diverse. On the other hand, very few scholarly voices have offered serious points of challenge to these positions on the grounds of the available information. In this time of assorted opinions in almost all scholarly areas, this last observation is truly amazing.

Did James Become a Believer Before Jesus’s Crucifixion?

The two chief researchers who have gone on record here are theologian John Painter and New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham. Both of these academics acknowledge freely that they are swimming upstream against the majority of their peers who hold that James’s prior unbelief was probably superseded by his conversion after he witnessed an appearance of the risen Jesus.56 Nonetheless, both offer some comments that will be addressed in this context.

Painter questions the historicity of the passage in Mark 3:20–21, especially in that it is only mentioned by Mark. Nonetheless, Painter points out that there is no hostility expressed on the part of the family members as they wait calmly for Jesus. Further, why is it so seldom mentioned that Jesus’s mother was included here as well without her faith also being questioned? The opposition is often said to be more apparent in John 7:3–5, which Painter interprets against the background in the Fourth Gospel. There does not seem to be any opposition or denial from Jesus’s brothers concerning his miracles, nor is cynicism expressed here on their part—a point that Painter repeats. The brothers reportedly did not believe in Jesus, at least in John’s sense in 7:5.57 Painter still concludes, however, that Jesus’s brothers were followers of Jesus throughout his ministry from the very beginning.58

Regarding the creedal appearance tradition in 1 Cor 15:5–7, Painter points out that the passage never states that James was converted at this juncture, which would seldom be challenged anyway. James was already a leader in the Jerusalem church during Paul’s early visits in Galatians 1–2. Later he was martyred.59

As for Painter questioning the historicity of Mark 3:21, Mark is both the earliest as well as the most respected of the four Gospels, so exceptionally few scholars ever make this same move. This can be witnessed even with the more skeptical scholarly views already expressed. As just mentioned above, a recent survey of over 200 contemporary New Testament critical scholars indicated that the majority view was that Mark was the author of this Gospel and that his chief historical source was the apostle Peter.60

But even with Painter working with the traditional scholarly view of Mark 3:21, Licona makes the statement, “John Painter may stand alone in his belief that this interpretation is mistaken.”61 That the brothers of Jesus showed no hostility and waited calmly is an entirely moot point regarding whether or not they believed in Jesus. Needless to say, one can be unbelieving or even seething and yet remain quiet at the same time. Certainly, a quiet and settled lack of faith can frequently be the case. Licona adds that Mary could well be following the others here, not in the sense of disbelieving herself but simply hoping to alleviate any negative outbreak here,62 which would be consistent with what mothers often do! Plus, Mary is not part of the judgment of unbelief in John 7:5. Moreover, a number of scholars do implicate Mary as being included in the unbelief expressed here, or whatever the brothers’ state of mind may have been at that time, as already mentioned above.

Concerning John 7:5, it could well be the case, as with Painter, that the brothers manifested no hostility or cynicism toward Jesus’s miracles, but that could be no more than an honest desire to witness supernatural events (John 2:11–12). But as for those observers in John 2:23–25, belief in Jesus’s miracles no more requires faith and trust in the one doing the miracles than any number of examples of fascination requires commitment to the particular cause at hand. These are very far from opposite reactions.

But Licona suggests that cynicism could indeed be present in this passage. In John 7:1 we are told that Jesus was avoiding a trip to Judea at this time because certain Jews wanted to kill him, and it was not yet his time (7:8). Whether or not the brothers knew this, their encouragement for him to go certainly could imply both cynicism as well as some bad intentions!63

Did Jesus’s brothers indeed follow Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, as per both Painter and Bauckham?64 Licona thinks that while this is possible, this suggested scenario “seems implausible” and “unconvincing” in light of the major point that in between “John 2:12 and 7:3, only Jesus and his disciples are mentioned (Jn 3:22; 4:2, 7–8, 27, 31–38; 6:3–24, 70–71), and there is nothing in these texts that indicate his brothers are with him during this period.”65 At the very least, that the brothers are not listed in these narratives would seem to remove them from among at least the key characters who participated during this time. To declare otherwise appears to at least border on an argument from silence, especially when the disciples are mentioned repeatedly as being present during this phase of Jesus’s ministry.

Making the views of Painter and Bauckham even less likely is that the disciples are said to have placed their faith in Jesus at the beginning of these passages (John 2:11). This is clearly in contrast to the brothers, who are explicitly asserted not to be believers at the end of these passages (7:5)!

Further, it appears highly questionable to hold that Acts 1:14 does not comment that James and his family were later believers, as when Paul states that about himself in 1 Cor 15:8.66 That this creedal text does not mention James’s conversion in the same context as Paul’s statement is irrelevant too. They are different passages by different authors discussing totally separate incidents. Besides, Paul’s comment about his own conversion is not even a part of this creed anyway—he adds it to the traditional portion. Concerning this entire contention by Painter, Licona holds that “this is neither necessary nor even hinted.”67 Other items could be mentioned here,68 but these are sufficient to argue that there are reasons why Painter’s views have not been embraced by virtually any other writers. We have seen that he simply does too much special pleading where texts do not contain their apparent meanings and where lesser sources are preferred over better ones, to name a few problems. It has all the sound of someone who does not want Mark and John to go in the direction that they do. Licona summarizes: “It is plain that Painter’s case is desperate.”69

Bauckham does not stretch into the highly questionable points that Painter does. For Bauckham, “both the best evidence that the brothers of Jesus were followers of Jesus during his ministry (2:12)” and the best evidence for the traditional view “that they were not (7:5)” come from John’s Gospel. We have already addressed above the absence of the brothers during the stretch between John 2:12 and 7:3. The data favoring the brothers are simply absent, and while it was recognized that their presence was possible, it cannot be established, so such attendance would certainly seem to be of minimal importance since it is not even mentioned at all! Further, especially in the absence of Bauckham’s initial argument, John 7:5 reigns supreme as the most direct statement on this subject in juxtaposition to John 2:11 regarding the disciples.

Moreover, Bauckham acknowledges freely that in light of John 7:5, even if the brothers had been accompanying Jesus and the disciples during this past time, “it may be possible that John means to indicate that from this point onward they are no longer followers of Jesus, like the many disciples who had given up following him some six months earlier (6:66).” Though the brothers believed Jesus’s miracles, “they are rather like those about whom Jesus laments that they will not believe unless they see signs and wonders (4:48)”70 and were hence considered by Jesus to be unbelievers.

Indicating that his argument here is even less like Painter’s, Bauckham asserts that in spite of Painter’s possible arguments against Jesus’s brothers being the ones whom Mark criticizes in 3:20–21, “I still find that [traditional] view plausible.” On Bauckham’s view, “Those who say that Jesus is ‘out of his mind’ in 3:21 are, then, the family of Jesus who appear in verse 31.” Elsewhere in the early literature,71 there are indications that Jesus thought a prophet was without honor in his own country, so here this notion “has been expanded, probably by Mark himself, to include Jesus’ own family explicitly among those who do not recognize his divine calling.”72

In sum, Bauckham’s points are far more balanced, allowing alternate interpretations that change significantly the trajectory of his overall argument. Still, inasmuch as Bauckham thinks that John 2:12 provides the best evidence for the nontraditional and heavily minority argument, Licona concludes, “I do not find Bauckham’s ‘best evidence’ convincing.”73

James Tabor is the last of the cited scholars who oppose what we have called the traditional scholarly position concerning the unbelief of Jesus’s brothers and possibly his other family members. For Tabor, Jesus’s brothers were members of his disciples, and this is what he calls “perhaps the best-kept secret in the entire New Testament.” And James, the eldest brother, was none other than the Gospel of John’s “beloved disciple”! Further, John 7:5 is held by Tabor to be the single text that teaches that Jesus’s brothers did not believe in Jesus, relegating Mark 3:21, 31–35 to an endnote. Then Tabor asserts, “It is amazing what firm opinions have been built upon such shaky foundations.”74

What may be even more amazing than Tabor thinking that the traditional views on the disciples’ unbelief are based on flimsy conclusions is that scholarship as a whole across the entire critical spectrum of divergent views has apparently not realized the import of his insights either! For example, one of Tabor’s own considerations was taken from the sixteenth-century kabbalistic rabbi Isaac ben Luria, who taught in a mystical tradition which held that Jesus was actually buried in Galilee! Tabor even poses for a photograph in that area, which he states was a burial area for several famous rabbis from the Roman era. Then Tabor asks, “Was it even remotely possible that Jesus’ family took him back to Galilee for burial?”75

Moreover, if these arguments so far do not weigh heavily enough against these claims,76 Tabor additionally supports the highly contentious conclusion that the Talpiot Tomb located near Jerusalem was the burial place of Jesus, his wife, Mary Magdalene, and his brother James, among others.77 However, to assert that the outcry from specialist scholars in relevant fields has been anything but affirmative would be a massive understatement.78 Literally dozens of refutations have come forth.79

This treatment by no means indicates that a scholarly survey should determine our views and that nontraditional interpretations do not have a chance of being correct, for this is definitely not the case. Rather, the underlying and far more basic idea here is precisely the opposite: that these views are (or at least should be) determined by research and careful study.

A Checklist: James’s Post-Resurrection Conversion

A list of reasons in support of the resurrection appearance to James will be summarized just briefly. The support for these statements has been reported in this chapter as well as in the other treatments in this volume on the minimal facts.

(1) As a crucial baseline consideration here, it has been argued in this chapter that the data (summarized in the conclusion below) treat James, the brother of Jesus, as an unbeliever until after Jesus’s crucifixion. When Jesus’s brothers appear in the Gospel narratives, they are viewed as nondisciples and even unbelievers, with John 7:5 striking a difficult note that is not contradicted elsewhere. This continues until the reports of James’s about-face concerning both Jesus’s resurrection appearances and his place in the early church.

(2) The most vital information of all concerns Jesus’s appearance to James as contained in the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:7a (cf. the fragment of the Gospel to the Hebrews 7),80 where it was reported that the risen Jesus had appeared to James. It was also recorded that he and his family were previously in the company of the earliest postascension gathering of Christians (Acts 1:14).

(3) Given the plethora of information available regarding the report of Jesus’s appearances in 1 Cor 15:3–7,81 the exceptionally early date of James’s appearance is crucially important, plus being well accepted by critical scholars. This creedal statement was introduced as such by Paul himself (15:3) and is widely thought to have most likely been dated even before Paul’s own conversion at about AD 32 or 33, as already mentioned. An earlier report could hardly be imagined.

(4) A number of factors indicate clearly that James was utterly transformed by his experience, and his life subsequently changed dramatically. Paul was an eyewitness of this when he met with both Peter and James in Jerusalem a mere five to six years after the crucifixion (AD 35–36), when these two apostles were the leaders of the large church there (Gal 1:18–21). Then still before writing the earliest New Testament Epistle, Paul returned to the city later and found that Peter, James, and the apostle John were still ministering to the believers there (Gal 2:1–10). James handed down the final verdict in Acts 15:19–21 at what most scholars think was the same meeting.82 In 1 Cor 9:5, Paul refers to the Lord’s brothers traveling with their believing wives when they ministered.

(5) Multiple attestation of independent sources is frequently mentioned as the most crucial and best respected of the historical criteria regularly applied by critical scholars to the Gospel texts to help determine the historicity of various passages.83 All along the line here, the events in James’s life are supported by these multiple sources. From James as an unbeliever, to Jesus’s appearance to him at an exceptionally early date, to his corresponding transformation for many years to come, these events are each backed by multiple sources apiece.

(6) Another criterion is that of multiple forms or literary categories usually as found in the Gospels, but also possibly in other literary genres. In James’s case, this might be extended to include the references in the Gospels of Mark and John as well as in Acts, the later noncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews along with Paul’s Epistles, plus the reference by Josephus. The idea here is that themes that are gathered and repeated across various literary genres, types, or forms can point to broad areas across the early church, hence reflecting earlier traditions.84

(7) Enemy or otherwise adversarial attestation may be ascertained from items that are gathered from those who oppose a person or message. Though James was not an outright enemy such as Paul and his persecutions of the early church, James’s previous behavior followed by his conversion was striking enough in that it involved a family “insider” who had not believed previously though there was ample reason for doing so, who later changed thoroughly and completely due to an extraordinary event that altered his life forever.

(8) Quite embarrassing features are also present in James’s life and conversion. Why would the leader of the Jerusalem church with a pristine reputation be characterized so negatively? This is especially the case when the Gospel comments most likely postdated James’s death, and it might be thought that Jesus’s brother should not be characterized so negatively but ought to have been remembered in a much more positive light, at least for the sake of promoting the gospel message. But the stories were told for a particular reason: they were true!

(9) James’s life was cut short by martyrdom, as Josephus makes clear enough. James was willing to die both for his Lord and for his faith, and then did so. People have died in the past for what is untrue, but it is almost impossible to locate cases of someone dying for what they totally believe was untrue as well as having that belief located at the very center of their lives. As Ehrman asserts strongly, it was this very belief that “turned the world on its ear.”85

(10) In all fairness, there is much uncertainty among critical scholars regarding which alternative thesis best answers the question of who wrote the book of James. More conservative scholars tend to take the view that James the brother of Jesus either wrote the epistle or that his teachings were at the heart of the work, which was edited by others. Yet, it is acknowledged that the question is difficult at points.86 Thus, while the subject is not an easy one, it should be acknowledged that if James was either the author or a primary contributor, some data in this volume would provide additional considerations in favor of James’s transformation and teaching abilities.

(11) A last tentative possibility concerns the so-called James Ossuary, purported to possibly be the “bone box” where James’s skeletal remains were later reburied after his flesh had decayed. Popularly translated, the name on the box reads “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus.” The pro and con arguments will not be reviewed here, though the relevant issues have raged through both the Israeli court system and scholarly discussions for several years.87 If for any reason(s) the ossuary did not belong to James the brother of Jesus, then it hardly helps us here. If it is James’s ossuary, the question is why his family would still be pleased to identify him as a follower of Jesus over thirty years later by placing his brother’s name on the outside of the bone box.

Eleven major and a few potential subsidiary points constitute a much smaller list of historical arguments for the appearances to James and even Paul.88 Perhaps it is easy to be spoiled by the much larger numbers (even the seemingly overwhelming total considerations in these other cases) of supporting reasons for the first four minimal facts. Yet there are certainly plenty of excellent factors for Jesus’s individual appearances to both James and Paul. After all, it must be considered precisely why the strong majority of critical scholars also recognize these data as being enough to establish these historical facts in both cases with few serious disagreements. Furthermore, it must be remembered that it is definitely the quality of the arguments, rather than their quantity, that determines the evidential weight of each historical event.

Conclusion

Licona summarizes his responses to Painter, Bauckham, and Tabor by making four basic points. The New Testament reports in one way or another indicate that Jesus’s brothers were not numbered among his disciples and other followers during his earthly ministry. Jesus’s brothers are mentioned in three Gospel pericopes, though not a single one of them is clearly positive. Only after the resurrection are the brothers spoken of as being followers of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the responses of these three critical scholars “cannot stand up to a closer examination of the texts they cite.” The arguments presented by the majority of critical scholars is a better indication of what these passages indicate.89

A review of the key canonical references on James is as follows:

Mark 3:20–21, 31–35: Jesus’s family members appear to have agreed with the local opinion that Jesus was “out of his mind” and, accordingly, attempted to remove Jesus from the situation.

Mark 6:2b–6: The townspeople responded negatively to Jesus, with Jesus’s family members apparently agreeing once again. Jesus’s response included his rejection by his family members or kin, and he was amazed at the levels of unbelief expressed here.

John 7:5: After the report that many of Jesus’s followers turned away and left, no longer following him (6:66), the comment was made quite clearly that even his own brothers did not believe in him. That remark is never refuted in any of the Gospels.

John 19:25–27: As he was dying, Jesus commits his mother to the care of the beloved disciple as both of them were standing near the crucifixion site. This action has been read as an additional signal or indication by some scholars that James had still not by that time become a believer in Jesus.

1 Cor 15:7a: A decisive event included within the pre-Pauline creedal tradition is that, after his death, Jesus appeared to James.

Acts 1:14: Days later, after Jesus’s death, appearances, and ascension, Mary, James, and the other brothers were gathered in Jerusalem for prayer along with Jesus’s disciples.

Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10 (cf. Acts 15:1–31): Beginning just a few years later, James was by that time firmly embedded in the early Christian leadership in Jerusalem, as he apparently passed down the final verdict on a crucial theological discussion, even though Paul, Peter, and other dignitaries were also present (Acts 15:13–21, particularly verse 19).

1 Cor 9:5: Jesus’s brothers are among those who, along with the apostles, were traveling with their believing wives in ministry situations.

So when did James (as well as the other brothers) come to faith in Jesus Christ? The majority view among critical scholars due to a general scenario like that outlined above is that we have no real indication that any of the men believed before the crucifixion. Whatever is thought of the text in John 19:25–27, this could be a prime indication that their belief had not happened by the time of Jesus’s death. But Jesus’s resurrection appearance to James likely occurred before Jesus’s family members became participants in the prayer session with the apostles and others after the ascension (Acts 1:14). This cannot be known for sure, however, but placing James’s conversion during the several-week period of Jesus’s appearances makes much sense. It is most certain that, well before the time of Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–2; Acts 15:1–31; 1 Cor 9:5; and so forth, James had been a believer for years and had become essentially the pastor or copastor of the Jerusalem church.

As mentioned from the outset in this chapter, the resurrection appearance to James stands out in a major way as the foremost event in James’s own life as well as occupying the very center of the entire New Testament proclamation as a whole. While other scenarios are possible options here, the predominant indication is that this is the most probable situation and hence the prime choice for this answer.90

To repeat Reginald Fuller’s insightful remark, “It might be said that if there were no record of an appearance to James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament we should have to invent one to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.”91 This reminder is an appropriate way to recall and summarize the best overall solution to the available data that are known to us.

Notes

1 Larry Hurtado, Mark, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 65.

2 Hurtado, Mark, 67.

3 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 164–67.

4 France, Gospel of Mark, as affirmed separately on 165, 166, and 167.

5 For many of these ideas, see Keener, Gospel of John, 1:704–6, with Keener’s quotation on 704 (see chap. 9, n. 111).

6 See Keener, 2:1141–45.

7 France, Gospel of Mark, 164–67.

8 Pelletier, “Dating of Mark’s Gospel” (see chap. 4, n. 42). In this MA thesis, Pelletier surveyed over 200 New Testament scholarly works of liberal, moderate, and conservative persuasions regarding various stances on the Gospel of Mark. More scholars than not favored the traditional authorship of John Mark. More specifically, almost exactly 80 percent also favored Peter being Mark’s primary historical source or as having some other sort of influence on the writing of the Gospel. From a personal email from Pelletier dated December 27, 2022. See also Raymond Brown’s comments on Mark’s chief source in John, 1:xcvii (see chap. 9, n. 148).

9 Keener, Gospel of John, 1:705. Keener also introduces the conclusion of the opening discussion in this commentary on John’s authorship with the words “Scholars commonly concur at least that the beloved disciple is the reliable source of much of the tradition recorded in the Fourth Gospel” (1114). See also James D. G. Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for Its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 293–22; and Brown, John, 1:xcvii.

10 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

11 For a list of many critical scholars who agree here, many of whom are skeptics of one sort or another, see the discussion later in this chapter.

12 See Bock, Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). John Dominic Crossan dates the Gospel to the Hebrews to the 50s, being written in Egypt; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 428–29 (see chap. 6, n. 44). Crossan’s view is a minority position.

13 Ron Cameron, ed., “The Gospel of the Hebrews,” in The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 83–86. The implication that James was desirous of sharing the cup with the risen Jesus could be due to his pre-resurrection conversion. But that desire might also be due to James’s previous desires to see Jesus perform miracles (John 2:3–5, 12; 7:3–4), which still did not keep John from stating that Jesus’s brothers did not believe in Jesus at that point (7:5), or even that such a hope arose in James after the resurrection but before he actually saw Jesus. Again, there is also the textual issue of the fragmented Gospel to the Hebrews with regard to its own dating and reliability, or even whether it had been altered on one or more occasions before this reading. For instance, Dale C. Allison expresses some doubts regarding this text, including referring to it as “a relatively late invention, perhaps in its entirety.” Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 77–79 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

14 Once again, even Bart Ehrman takes Paul’s visits to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, James, and John as among the most important of the texts pertaining to the historical Jesus, bordering on providing eyewitness testimony. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–48, 251 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 137–43 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

15 Of course, there is a fair chance that James was alone when he thought that Jesus appeared to him. So those who reject this resurrection appearance may opt in favor of hallucinations or other species of subjective experiences. These and other alternate options are entertained and critiqued in much detail in the next volume of this study. But it needs to be remembered that, given several strong options from the exceptionally early appearance list in 1 Cor 15:3–7 as well as elsewhere, it should be judged quite likely that James was also present at one or more of the group appearances such as those to “all the apostles,” or to the 500 persons at once, or on the very last day of Jesus’s appearances, for examples. After all, we are told that James was indeed present when the apostolic group was together in the “upper room” directly after Jesus’s appearances ended with his ascension, which would place James right there at the close of this period (Acts 1:14). In fact, it would be strange if James had not also been a witness at one or more of the group appearance events.

16 As Michael Licona has pointed out in Resurrection of Jesus, 461 (see chap. 2, n. 13). However, in our coauthored volume The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 67–69, we still counted James’s conversion as a minimal fact.

17 Habermas, “Minimal Facts,” 25 (see chap. 4, n. 2). In Licona’s response to my essay here, he acknowledges the strength of the argument and holds that he may reinstall James to his own list at some future date, along with some other additional facts. So the friendly discussion continues. See Licona, “In Reply,” 55–56 (see chap. 4, n. 2).

18 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 461.

19 This is reported in both Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 102 and Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 109 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

20 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 201, 229–230 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 192, 203.

21 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33 (see chap. 5, n. 7).

22 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 135, in context (see chap. 10, n. 56).

23 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 27 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Granted, it is difficult to know from the Gospel of Thomas when and why James was believed to have joined the group of disciples, or even whether or not this comment should be thought of as a retrospective reflection that looks forward to James’s subsequent role in the early church. But the majority of scholars agreed that the title “James the Just” can hardly be regarded as a title for James while Jesus was still alive!

24 Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 448; Shanks and Witherington, Brother of Jesus, 26 (Shanks) (see chap. 6, n. 166); Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, trans. William F. Stinespring (New York: Macmillan, 1944), 280; cf. Bruce Chilton’s closing “Epilogue,” in Chilton and Jacob Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 185.

25 Spong, Easter Moment, 68 (see chap. 12, n. 25).

26 John Shelby Spong, Resurrection, Myth or Reality? A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 52.

27 Spong, 256, 259, 289.

28 Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 258, esp. n. 91 (see excursus 2, n. 27), but Conzelmann notes that he doubts this, though without explanation.

29 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 95–98, 134, 153, 218–219, 225 (see chap. 1, n. 42).

30 Wedderburn, 116.

31 Wedderburn, 264n171.

32 Wedderburn, 116.

33 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 215, cf. 269, 343 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Allison also addresses similar matters in Resurrection of Jesus, 77–79.

34 Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 167; also Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 237n146, 262–63.

35 Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 495, also 492. Casey’s personal beliefs are also noted in his work Jesus, 3, 37, 39 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

36 Betz, Galatians, 78 (see chap. 10, n. 70); J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour, UK: Drinkwater, 1982), 98–99, in spite of Derrett rejecting the historicity of the resurrection; also Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 400–401; Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know, 61 (see chap. 4, n. 46), even though the resurrection appearances cannot be considered as historical events (23); Grant, Saint Peter, 140 (see chap. 12, n. 25), though Grant thinks James was not converted until after Jesus’s crucifixion, he proposes that James’s “appearance” was probably invented. Another provocative volume that deals with some of the prominent issues here is Akenson, Saint Saul, 167–69, 176–77 (see chap. 3, n. 118).

37 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 325, 560, quotation on 325 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

38 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 37 for both quotations, also 177 (see chap. 10, n. 23).

39 Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 97.

40 Wilckens, Resurrection, 113 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

41 Stuhlmacher, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 49.

42 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:67–71 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

43 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 125 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

44 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 105 (emphasis added) (see chap. 5, n. 19).

45 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 126, also 234.

46 Sanders, 303n4, also 277; see also Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 105, and Sanders, “But Did It Happen?,” Spectator 276 (1996): 17.

47 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 267.

48 Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, esp. 143–44, also 128, 141, 184 (see chap. 5, n. 49).

49 Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 105–6, also 91, 138 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

50 Oden, Word of Life, 490 (see chap. 12, n. 34).

51 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 440–61, particularly 441, 445, 452, 454, 461. We will return below to Licona’s astute critique of the views of Painter, Bauckham, and Tabor.

52 Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 63–64 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

53 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 229–31, quotation on 229 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

54 See Stephen Davis’s stimulating essay, “‘Seeing’ the Risen Jesus,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 131.

55 Eugene H. Peterson, Living the Resurrection: The Risen Christ in Everyday Life (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2006), 101.

56 See John Painter, “Who Was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” 24, 29, and Richard Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 106–9, both in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, ed. Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001).

57 Painter, “Who Was James?,” 24–29, 57.

58 Painter, 29–31.

59 Painter, 57–58.

60 Pelletier, “Dating of Mark’s Gospel” (from a personal email from Pelletier dated December 27, 2022).

61 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 441.

62 Licona, 442.

63 Licona, 446.

64 Painter concentrates on the text between John 2:1–11 and 7:9 in “Who Was James?,” 28, while Bauckham lists Jesus’s brothers as accompanying him “during his ministry” in between John 2:12 and 7:10 in Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 106–7, quotation on 106.

65 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 452.

66 Painter, “Who Was James?,” 29.

67 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 448–49.

68 For example, why question the historicity of texts in Mark and John, as seen in Painter, “Who Was James?,” 23, 25, but search for hints to support one’s view in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and even the Second Apocalypse of James (29–30, 32–34) instead of the far more accredited criteria that confirm the major passages here in the canonical texts? Here is yet another stretch.

69 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 450.

70 Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 107.

71 Here Bauckham lists Luke 4:24; John 4:44; the Gospel of Thomas 31; and P. Oxy (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus) 132–33. See Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 108.

72 Bauckham, 108. This response by Bauckham also addresses in part Painter’s doubts regarding the historicity of Mark’s comments in 3:21, as raised earlier. See Painter, “Who Was James?,” 25.

73 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 452.

74 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 165 (see chap. 1, n. 18).

75 Tabor, 238–40.

76 As mentioned earlier in this study, James Tabor is another critical scholar who has become a friend after we spent some quality time together just before the breaking of the Talpiot Tomb news. So this note is an autobiographical comment that nothing here should be misconstrued in any way as expressing animosity toward him or his views. It is simply a matter of thinking there are some serious issues with a number of the statements expressed above.

77 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, including several key discussions on the Talpiot Tomb on 20, 23–27, 224, 235–36.

78 For example, in a combined protest that is almost never witnessed from the most respected scholars in the relevant area of study within a given field, see “The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited,” issued under the name of the “Duke University Religion Department,” https://dukereligion.blogspot.com/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html (January 24, 2008), with the following summation: “To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance—including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb—either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.” Signing the document were more than a dozen of the most respected scholars from elite universities and seminaries in the appropriate areas of research listed above, mostly from the United States and Israel, holding Christian, Jewish, and other views.

79 Strangely enough, even the highly positive volume by the Emmy-winning documentary director Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino admits concerning the name on one of the ossuaries, namely “Jesus son of Joseph,” that according to the detailed information of male names in the first-century Jerusalem area, it is known that more than 1,000 men would have had this very same father-son combination during the century of ossuary use! To not miss the point, that means approximately one man in every seventy-nine would be a “Jesus” with a father named “Joseph.” See Jacobovici and Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007, 75). This alone amounts to a prodigious mountain to climb, with this statistic coming from those on the promotional side of this topic! Clearly the fine print needs to be studied here. That would also account for the fact that this was not the only ossuary to bear this combination of names during those years. For a compendium of dozens of opposing testimonies and refutations of these Talpiot Tomb arguments, see Gary R. Habermas, The Secret of the Talpiot Tomb: Unraveling the Mystery of the Jesus Family Tomb (Nashville: B&H, 2007).

80 Crossan also includes the Gospel of Thomas 12 as an additional source for the appearance to James; see Crossan, Historical Jesus, 436.

81 See especially the chapters above on the disciples’ experiences, the early dating for these events, plus the brief study on the New Testament creedal reports.

82 Keener, Acts, 361 (see chap. 9, n. 38).

83 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, esp. 158 (see chap. 2, n. 35); cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 271, 290–91; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 95–96.

84 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 162–63.

85 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230, particularly in the context of 230–32.

86 For examples, see Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 410–413 (see chap. 10, n. 20); Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 723–46; David P. Nystrom, James, The NIV Application Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 19–21.

87 This debate concerning the James Ossuary is far removed from the controversy regarding the Talpiot Tomb. For a well-known overview and defense of the former, see Shanks and Worthington, Brother of Jesus. Shanks was the Jewish editor of Biblical Archaeological Review while Witherington is a well-published New Testament scholar. After their investigation, both Shanks and Witherington accepted the authenticity of the James Ossuary. Shanks reported that the tests “eliminated the possibility that the inscription was a modern forgery on a genuine ancient ossuary” (20). Later Shanks concluded, “To my mind, it is virtually certain that the James ossuary and its inscription are authentic ancient artifacts” (50). For his part, Witherington asks, “Why did Jesus continue to have such a celebrated presence three decades after he had died? Why was he mentioned on his brother’s burial box so many decades years later?” (220). Yet, many scholars have not granted the authenticity of this artifact, and even an authentic artifact would not necessarily indicate that this ossuary belonged to Jesus’s brother. The arguments for and against this identification went back and forth and of course will not be solved here, though there is some potential for a helpful response in terms of this chapter.

88 It is also recognized that the sixth plus the last two reasons above might be thought to be weaker than the other arguments. As has been remarked in other chapters, different researchers will evaluate evidential considerations variously.

89 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 454.

90 In a recent PhD dissertation, Brian L. Cunningham argues similarly; see “From Mocker to Martyr: The Unlikely Conversion of James the Brother of Jesus” (PhD diss., Liberty University, 2022), 181–97.

91 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 37 (emphasis added); cf. 177.

14

Minimal Fact 6: The Conversion of Paul

Of the many detailed reports and declarations of Jesus’s resurrection appearances contained in the canonical New Testament books and in additional writings shortly after that time, no author is taken more seriously by critical scholars than the apostle Paul. While there have been many attempts to define, describe, or unpack further the details of Paul’s postresurrection experience, such efforts are frequently done quite respectfully. Comparatively few scholarly researchers seem to challenge this apostle’s stated experience in disrespectful ways. While they may often disagree that Paul actually saw the risen Jesus, they take his comments seriously and respectfully. Why is that? Beginning with the primacy of Paul, the major reports of his experience will be discussed in this chapter, chiefly from Paul’s Epistles and the three main Acts narratives.

The Primacy of Paul

Critical scholars hold almost unanimously that at least seven of the New Testament Epistles attributed to Paul were actually written by him: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Even skeptical scholars refer to these texts as the “undisputed letters”1 or as those epistles that are “generally accepted as genuine without doubt.”2 These Pauline compositions are usually thought to have appeared in the decade of the 50s, from AD 50 to 60.3

Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) declared that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the risen Jesus appeared to him. This experience is taken even by very critical scholars to have constituted Paul’s specific call to ministry, commanding him to take the gospel message to the Gentiles (Gal 1:16).4 In probably the clearest of Paul’s statements, he cites Jesus’s appearance to him as providing the necessary credentials for his identification as an apostle (1 Cor 9:1). Further, Paul appended his appearance to the end of the very early, official list of other appearances of the risen Jesus (1 Cor 15:3–8), fully recognizing that the lateness of his experience was a temporal anomaly. These two reports provide Paul’s clearest eyewitness statements of his own resurrection appearance that occurred just two to three years after Jesus’s crucifixion in the area of Damascus. This occurrence will be the focus of this chapter.

Secondary summaries of Jesus’s appearance to Paul on the way to Damascus are recounted three times in Acts (9:1–9; 22:1–11; 26:9–19). Luke, traditionally known as the best prospect for the authorship of Acts and Paul’s travel companion, presumably heard the apostle tell his own story more than once.

That this event is what inaugurated Paul becoming a follower of Jesus Christ is seldom denied. But such a drastic about-face from his previous path as an exceptional young scholar and chief persecutor of the church (Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:4–7) to an apostle who never left the Christian path certainly demands an adequate explanation. Paul had no doubts that the reason was clear: he had met the risen Jesus.

The unanimity among critical scholars on Paul’s writing, preaching of the gospel, debating, and radically living the Christian life is really quite astonishing. It is generally acknowledged among scholars, whatever their theological leaning, that Paul was certainly the recipient of a real experience that he believed deeply to be an appearance of the risen Jesus—one that set the course for the remainder of his life. This experience surely accounts for his incredible transformation and untiring motivation to spread the gospel message. Because of reasons like these, Paul’s statements are regarded as eyewitness reports of his own experience. For example, as atheistic philosopher Michael Martin asserts, “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”5

Why is Paul’s experience given this place of priority in recent scholarly thinking? Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover explains why Paul’s writings are the proper place from which to launch such a study: “The reason for starting here is simple and compelling: Paul’s testimony is the earliest and the most historically reliable evidence about the resurrection of Jesus that we have.”6 Hoover continues, “The most important evidence about the resurrection with which Paul provides us is . . . a direct claim that he has seen the risen Jesus.”7 Martin and Hoover are not alone on an island here; numerous other skeptical scholars have likewise agreed on the crucial nature of Paul’s experience and witness.8

Historian Donald Akenson even charges that critical scholars must take Paul even more seriously than they already do! Akenson also agrees that pride of position regarding Paul’s priority holds for similar reasons to those just mentioned by Hoover: Paul’s authentic letters are the earliest sources for the historical Jesus, plus they are the only New Testament writings whose authorship is clearly known. Yet, Akenson faults both liberal as well as conservative scholars for not being even more thoroughly committed to these Pauline conclusions.

Akenson thinks that liberals fail to give Paul his full due for two reasons: the centrality of the crucifixion and resurrection in Paul’s writings, plus their giving equal and perhaps even prior commitment to the so-called Q pre-Gospel source. Akenson faults conservatives even more for not preferring Paul more often without realizing that this apostle contributed plenty to an understanding of the historical Jesus. He suggests that Paul ought to be located firmly in the primary historical position ahead of the Gospels and Acts until the latter sources can be confirmed by Paul.9

Importantly then, critical scholars are generally in agreement today: Paul is the best authority regarding what we can learn about the historicity of Jesus and the earliest church. Of course, various scholars will argue especially for particular details taken from Mark, Q, or the other Gospel sources. Still, the preferential reasons favoring Paul usually hold, even in spite of the various theological differences present among commentators. Besides other aspects above, it is recognized that as a Pharisee, Paul was trained theologically, was honest and forthright, and really believed the doctrine that he taught. If he was mistaken at points, he would not have made these gaffs purposely.

Recent Trends regarding the Resurrection Appearance to Paul

One trend, however, has remained more or less steady during the past two centuries, often (though not always) as the most dominant view while almost always being present as a major, competing option. A large number of commentators have tended to conclude that whatever one decides regarding the other resurrection appearances of Jesus as depicted especially in the Gospels, Paul’s experience represents less than the sighting of the actual body of Jesus. Emphasizing the notion of the “spiritual body” and primarily highlighting 1 Cor 15:35–50, these scholars have accentuated the transformed side of this equation more than the “bodily” side in discussions.

Speaking generally, this view has usually been adopted in one of two chief forms. One explanation, almost always dismissing the reality of miracles and supernatural involvement, argues that while Paul himself taught that he really saw a heavenly vision of Jesus, it was actually an internal experience, understanding, or occurrence. This view has persisted in some form up until today, and often as the majority position. Those who hold the other perspective on Paul’s experience agree in emphasizing the spiritual component and downplaying the strongly bodily element while still taking the position that Paul was actually correct to this extent: he truly did witness a disembodied, glorified vision of the exalted Jesus who did appear to him.10

However, during the past few decades a rather dramatic shift has emerged, at least in certain limited though sometimes even highly critical theological circles almost concurrent with the rise of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus movement. This general position often argues that Paul at least thought he had encountered basically the same raised and transformed body (Greek: soma) of Jesus as had his fellow apostles. This view is itself split in two. On the one hand, contemporary commentators may agree that while this is what Paul both thought and taught happened to Jesus, the apostle’s position is still rejected by these scholars perhaps in favor of either the more naturalistic position or the real but disembodied appearances position. On the other hand, other recent scholars argue both that this was Paul’s personal view and that they agree with Paul’s conclusion.11

To repeat, the first option here that Paul held the bodily position is preferred by many major researchers who hold this exegesis to be correct while doubting or denying actual resurrection appearances themselves. For example, German New Testament researcher Gerd Lüdemann holds that Paul’s appearance was a subjective vision, yet he thinks Paul’s language requires that the apostle actually believed that the risen Jesus appeared as an actual body.12

Likewise, after juxtaposing the three Acts descriptions of Paul’s conversion with Paul’s own briefer comments, John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed opt for the latter bodily view for Paul, since Paul’s Epistles are the primary texts while the Acts accounts are secondary. Taken in concert with Paul’s view of the nature of the resurrection body of both Jesus as well as believers, they argue that Paul held to bodily resurrection appearances,13 and at least Crossan rejects hallucinations as the cause.14 Crossan develops this analysis elsewhere as well.15 Lüdemann, Crossan, and Reed are far from alone in this contrast either.16

Briefly, the most recent and cutting-edge trend in contemporary scholarship on these issues takes the entirety of Paul’s language into consideration regarding the resurrection body of both Jesus and believers, rather strongly favoring the notion that even Paul taught that Jesus appeared to him after his death in a bodily manner.17 As noted elsewhere in this study, there remain differences in how various commentators shade this meaning here and there, sometimes just slightly, while still primarily favoring the bodily side of the equation. For example on what is termed a bodily appearance view, the distinction is quite often made that the notion involves the body being of a fine, highly distilled substance.18

Nevertheless, Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere indicates that while Jesus’s body must have changed in some manner,19 exhibiting a new spiritual component (cf. Phil 1:21), it was still his own body. Among several other reasons to be discussed later, not only did Paul teach precisely this, but this also would go a long way in explaining why Jesus was not always recognized immediately when he appeared initially (as in Luke 24:16; John 20:14; pseudo-Mark 16:12). Thus, we must do justice to both of the Pauline terms in the apostle’s concept of the “spiritual body” (15:42–44). A few researchers have even gone as far as to argue that Paul thought of his own appearance as even “more ‘objective’ and ‘physical’” than the other resurrection appearances!20 This is certainly a remarkable about-face from the past two centuries of research.

As commented, many recent theologians do not criticize Paul much on the nature of Jesus’s resurrection appearance to him. Generally, the experience is often simply stated in a straightforward manner and left there. Nonetheless, enough questions have been raised throughout the past two centuries to require a historical response. A number of these views are discussed in the second volume.

Countering Challenges to Jesus’s Appearance to Paul

So what was the nature of Paul’s experience? Was it only a subjective, inward revelation, or were at least some items observed by those around him?21 For instance, Acts reports that the other travelers who accompanied Paul also noticed something—a voice perhaps. In older treatments, the distinction was sometimes made that Paul’s companions may have heard the sound of a voice (9:7) although without distinguishing the message itself (22:9). This suggestion often involved the possible contrast of the two senses of phōnē in the Greek, as in hearing a sound but without comprehending the meaning (akouontes men tēs phōnēs in the genitive case in 9:7—as contrasted with tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan in the accusative case in 22:9). In everyday communication it is a normal occurrence for the crux of discussions to be missed by those present. However, while there may be something to the underlying point here,22 this idea is not evidenced by the Greek terms themselves.23

But there are other possible indicators here of at least a partially shared experience on this occasion. The reader is told that the other men also witnessed an extraordinary light (Acts 22:9; 26:13) and, like Paul, they likewise responded by falling to the ground (26:14). The light blinded Paul for three days (9:8–9; 22:11). The latter descriptions here involved elements beyond Paul’s experience, including being observed by others who were present. Additionally, against the popular statement or suggestion that Paul had only witnessed a heavenly light or internal revelation, the texts in Acts also affirm that Paul did see Jesus (9:17, 27; 26:16). In agreement here, Lüdemann correctly recognizes these more objective elements as being present in the Acts narratives as well.24 Keener likewise notes these “corporate experiences.”25

It has long been held regularly, going back to at least early nineteenth-century German liberalism, that Paul perhaps suffered any number of psychological maladies that led to mystical, inward experiences, most commonly identified as profound grief for his past persecution of believers.26 But there are several serious issues here. Mystical convictions are one thing, but postulating possible inward conditions such as these is unsupported in any specific way by the available evidence, especially when simultaneously ignoring the early and authoritative data that we already possess which teach the opposite view. Such practices are not the best research routes to take.

Further, contemporary attempts to psychoanalyze Paul almost 2,000 years after the facts to interpret what “must” have been on his mind at that time is widely agreed by all sides to be unproductive and ungrounded. This is especially the case if the desired outcome is to utilize modern techniques to “discover” a particular un-supported foreign agenda.

Moreover, the subjective mindsets which are often attributed to Paul are a truly meager basis on which to ground this apostle’s unwavering assurance that he truly had seen an appearance of the risen Jesus, especially when taking his level of sacrificial commitment forward to the end of his life in the context of his intense suffering.

Lastly, the frequent critical stance to downgrade the overall Acts accounts while at the same time approving the language regarding Paul’s conversion is another weakness in some recent research. Why this inconsistency, especially when the moves appear to further a particular position? Such problematic methodological and conceptual underpinnings are insufficient moves to try and explain away Jesus’s resurrection appearance to Paul.27

Steps toward a Positive Case

Beyond these clarifications, several additional, positive principles may be more helpful in establishing the actual nature of Jesus’s appearance to Paul, this time based on what is known about those times. In other words, though Paul’s experience has not been disproven, are there any further reasons to ascertain better just what may have happened? A couple of potential signposts in this quest will be viewed briefly.

Initially, William Lane Craig has argued “that while the appearance to Paul was semi-visionary in nature, it cannot be properly conceived of as a simple vision, for the experience involved extra-mental accompaniments, namely, the light and the voice.”28 In discussing Paul’s conversion accounts in Acts, Craig attempts to allow for both the subjective as well as the objective features in the narratives. These three Acts accounts should cause the reader to steer away from overemphasizing just one or the other sort of experiential features, as is too often done, by taking both aspects into account.

Craig is not alone in this observation either. Moving in what some commentators take to be a more balanced direction, however, may push others toward the tendencies of the objective vision thesis for Paul, as discussed earlier. But it should not be forgotten that this critical position championed by Keim and others was still exceptionally critical of alternative notions like the hallucination and other subjective scenarios on the one hand, while fully espousing real appearances of Jesus, though typically nonbodily ones, on the other. Though these experiences were thought to be less corporeal in nature, several stronger, more objective features were still present and could be emphasized according to these data as well, in the effort to emphasize both sides of these teachings. What Craig termed the “extra-mental accompaniments” in the real world were like those that were also witnessed by Paul’s companions.29

For Keim and others who did take the objective vision thesis during the middle of the German liberal First Quest for the historical Jesus, the conclusions could be somewhat surprising to say the least. Keim thought that Jesus actually appeared to his followers, though in less-than-bodily form, but he still recognized that his thesis was supernatural in nature. The appearances were still termed miracles, so these events could point to or even evidence God’s activity in the life of his son Jesus by raising him from the dead! Actually, most of Christianity’s other major doctrines could be true on this thesis as well. Keim even allowed that Jesus’s appearances may actually have been corporeal in nature!30 These experiences can also ground the belief in human immortality in the process.31

Actually, more radical scholars could find themselves on the horns of a dilemma here. If the Acts narratives are counted as either secondary or unreliable, as critical scholars often prefer, then Paul’s own comments in his epistles would even more obviously take precedence regarding his own appearance experience plus his specific teachings on the nature of the resurrection bodies of believers. This would clearly strengthen the notion that these appearances took the form of more bodily events. This view is discussed at length in a later volume of this study regarding recent views of Jesus’s resurrection body, and it is often, with variations, taken as the more favored position at present. Perhaps surprising to some, this position is even preferred by a number of other skeptical scholars who, though they often reject the actual resurrection itself, still hold that a bodily resurrection is clearly taught in the New Testament, including by Paul. Favoring versions of bodily resurrection as Paul’s view is held by critical scholars such as Lüdemann, Crossan and Reed (above), plus Ehrman,32 Vermes,33 Lapide,34 and Allison,35 among many others.

However, if the reliability of Acts is judged to be approximately the same as that of the Gospels (though this is a rare position among quite critical scholars), then it would seem that the appearances depicted in Luke 24:13–53 and Acts 1:1–11 would need to be given a new hearing in the direction of bodily appearances. Intriguingly, Luke clearly does not think there is a problem between the earlier bodily appearances to the apostles and the appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus. It is arguably more difficult of late to juxtapose the appearances to the apostles as opposed to those to Paul.36

Crucially for our study here, both of these positions on the nature of Acts favor the actual occurrence of a resurrection appearance to Paul, at least by recognizing that this was the position taken by the New Testament writers themselves. Likewise, on both views of Paul’s experience as either being a bodily or a semi-visionary event (as mentioned above by Craig), this also favors an actual appearance to Paul. These two juxtaposed angles increase the likelihood that Jesus Christ’s appearance to Paul was a real event.

The second consideration here is this: as influential as Paul’s appearance was, his chief contribution to resurrection studies may not have been testifying to his own experience that led to his conversion from that of the infamous Christian persecutor to an apostle of Jesus Christ and perhaps the best known missionary-theologian of all time. Arguably, Paul’s greatest role may well have been as the apostle who knew the other key apostolic eyewitnesses and who heard their own testimonies to their resurrection appearances. The vital connections here were Paul’s two early trips to Jerusalem to interview the other most influential apostles, namely, Peter and James the brother of Jesus, and the second time with Peter, James, and John, concerning the nature of the Christian gospel message, as Paul states in Gal 1:18–20 and 2:1–10. Their agreement with Paul on this topic is indicated in Gal 2:6, 9. Paul also clearly acknowledges that the other apostles’ testimony concerning Jesus’s resurrection appearances were the same as his, in that they were all preaching and teaching of a resurrected Jesus (1 Cor 15:11).

Especially for those scholars who question whether (or how much) eyewitness testimony stands behind the teachings of the canonical Gospels, Paul’s trips to Jerusalem indicate an amazingly crucial path to the other major apostles’ testimonies, reported by the chief source accepted by contemporary critical scholars, namely, Paul.37 For example, Ehrman counts Paul having known the other major apostles and hearing their testimony as the first of two “especially key” indications of the data that favor the historicity of Jesus. Ehrman thinks that Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem here are two of the best indications that Jesus was indeed a historical person. Speaking of Paul’s first fifteen-day trip to Jerusalem speaking with Peter and James, Ehrman states, “These are two good people to know if you want to know anything about the historical Jesus.” Ehrman then adds almost wistfully, “I wish I knew them.” Then Ehrman asks: “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?”38 Thus, from Paul we learn about what the four most influential apostles knew about Jesus and his resurrection appearances.39

A Checklist: Data Supporting Paul’s Resurrection Appearance

From the available data, what sorts of reasons have grounded the virtually unanimous view of critical scholars, causing them to take Paul’s conversion event on the road to Damascus so seriously? Why did the Jesus Seminar rate Paul’s experience with a “virtually certain” red rating, even if they usually rejected the actual resurrection event itself? Arguments of some sort, stated concisely, lie behind the scenes of this occurrence.

(1) As a baseline starting point, it is quite clear that Paul was an ardent non-Christian before his conversion (Gal 1:13–14; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:4–7), even to the point of persecuting Christians “to their death” according to Acts 22:4. The “zeal” for his previous beliefs was a huge contrast with the later path he took due to his assurance that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

(2) That Paul had a real experience that he believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus is quite secure from the historical data and is accordingly affirmed by the vast majority of critical scholars. To repeat the words of passionate atheistic philosopher Michael Martin: “We have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s.”40 As prominent Jesus Seminar member Roy Hoover continues, “The most important evidence about the resurrection with which Paul provides us is . . . a direct claim that he has seen the risen Jesus.”41

(3) Judging from the three reports in Acts, there are external indications that Paul’s fellow travelers also witnessed the accompanying extraordinary light and at least the sound of a voice while responding by falling to the ground. But if Acts is disallowed, then there is no reason from these records to doubt the objectivity of Paul’s experience.

(4) The very earliest apostolic gospel teaching (the homologia), James’s conversion, the date of Paul’s conversion, the original date of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition that this apostle passed to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15, and Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem to interview Peter and James are all exceptionally early events. It is agreed by critical scholars that each of these five occurrences happened within five to six years at the latest after the crucifixion.42 Hoover is an example of the critical researchers who cite these dates,43 as are other Jesus Seminar members, such as Robert Funk,44 Howard Clark Kee,45 and Thomas Sheehan.46 Ehrman declares on many occasions that these earliest creedal traditions or their components extend back to the 30s, with some of them dating from just one to two years after the crucifixion!47 Comments such as these could be literally multiplied from the writings of even very critical researchers, with many other examples already having been given in the three chapters here on the disciples’ experiences, the early date of these events, and the creedal traditions.

(5) Without any question, Paul’s accepted epistles plus his actions over the years indicate many times over that he had been living a transformed life far beyond his many travels and “missionary journeys” alone, even to the point of constantly placing himself in harm’s way for the opportunity to preach the gospel.48 Owing to such convictions, as Ehrman reports, Paul and the other disciples of Jesus “eventually turned the world on its ear.”49

(6) Multiple attestation from independent sources also confirms Paul’s authority and experience at various points. It has already been mentioned that Paul’s own authentic writings are enough testimony for most critical academics. However, further sources include Acts, Clement (about AD 95), Ignatius, and Polycarp (both ca. 110), among others.

(7) Paul’s testimony in itself is exceptionally embarrassing on its own grounds. That a leader among the apostles had a previous history that was so serious that he may even have been guilty in whole or in part of actually participating in the deaths of Christians (Acts 7:54–60; 22:4) is a tough backstory to speak about openly. Hence, it is somewhat surprising that these reports were told often enough and with details (Gal 1:23–24). Paul’s truthful report came from a previous adversary who knew well the case against Christians and wanted them stopped immediately. Yet in spite of this knowledgeable background, he still converted and became a Christian leader, no doubt playing an important role in causing others to at least consider Jesus’s message.50 At any rate, though quite embarrassing, such an eyewitness and actual participant on both sides of the debate probably facilitated both a greater outreach for the Christian gospel message as well as provided a stronger quality of evidence on behalf of the Christian claims.

(8) Seen from a different perspective, Paul’s brief testimonies were not only embarrassing, but his former life was spent as an enemy of the gospel message before his present postconversion life of following his Lord. In short, Paul brought several key contrasts with him into the church, while concluding that living according to what he had believed as an adversary of the Christian message was not to be compared to what he was experiencing presently (1 Cor 9:24–27; Phil 3:12–14). While James the brother of Jesus did not possess the same enemy status as did Paul, convincing a family member to change their mind can often be a very difficult prospect as well. And since James spent significant time with Paul on at least two early occasions (Gal 1:18–2:10; cf. Acts 15:1–31), he would have been able to observe the renovation of Paul’s own life in a firsthand manner. In both cases, these two men who later became apostles themselves brought a different sort of testimony to back up the truth of Paul’s message.

(9) It was remarked above that Paul was more than willing to place his life on the line many times over to preach the gospel message, as his own writings attest. Adding significantly to this truth is that Paul actually died as a martyr due to his own missionary activity. This is related by both Clement (1 Clem. 5) as well as by Polycarp (Phil. 9). Other relevant early texts that also provide hints include 2 Tim 4:6–8, 16–18, and Ignatius (Eph. 12.2; Rom. 4). Most scholars place Paul’s martyrdom in the 60s, during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero (r. AD 54–68).51 In his doctoral study of early Christian martyrdom, Sean McDowell rates the certainty of Paul’s death as “the highest possible probability.”52

(10) Another factor that adds to the value of Paul’s accounts is that he was well educated as a Pharisee whose study and intelligence are indicated in his writings such as Romans, where he is more than able to carry out an argument to thoughtful conclusions. Rather obviously, being well educated and intelligent by no means guarantees good observation skills or taking the right view on potential issues. But in situations such as Paul’s evaluating the issues involved in his conversion from Judaism or in his early interviews (historēsai, Gal 1:18) with the apostles Peter, James, and John in Jerusalem (Gal 1:18–2:10), the value of Paul’s training shines.

(11) Lastly, suffice it to say for now that if the highly detailed examination of alternative challenges in the second volume of this study fails to locate other likely theses contrary to what has been concluded in this text, then that conclusion will add to the likelihood that the most probable thesis is that Paul did experience an appearance of the risen Jesus on his way to Damascus. While the full examination must wait until the next volume, even from the comments earlier in this chapter, naturalistic theses do not seem to have gained a major foothold in explaining the nature of Paul’s experience. This theme will be mentioned again in the conclusion immediately below.

As with the treatment of James’s experience in the previous chapter, there are fewer arguments in these last two cases than with the first four minimal facts. Eleven considerations in favor of Paul’s experience remains a strong number, including the possibility of unpacking still more secondary arguments from this list as well, depending on the evaluator.

The final item to be remembered here is a major one. Even most critical specialists in related areas of study usually agree with the general outline of the considerable amount of data that is known about Paul, with some key aspects being assembled throughout this chapter. It was pointed out above that the scholarly view on Paul in the contemporary literature is usually quite positive—perhaps providing Paul with a “head start” on this subject! Many scholars are satisfied with the available information. For those who doubt or reject the resurrection appearances of Jesus, the case constructed here contains plenty of supporting material through which to dialogue through the options. Therefore, the evaluative discussion may move forward in the next volume.

Conclusion

Jesus’s resurrection appearance to Paul is well founded in terms of the available data. The alternative hypotheses that are often suggested to explain this specific event quite frequently build on features that may have been present during Paul’s journey to Damascus. Internal possibilities especially mention possible subjective mental conditions that might have been transpiring in Paul’s mind or any of several physical problems that may have plagued this apostle. The problems with these and other hypotheses are many, including chiefly the utter lack of corresponding mental, physical, or historical data for any of these suggestions, as even major skeptical critics have pointed out repeatedly. There are extreme limitations in attempting to psychoanalyze Paul or anyone else almost 2,000 years after the facts.

On the other hand, the positive reports available argue in a totally different direction. If the three accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 are accepted in a more or less straightforward manner, as is popular even among many quite skeptical researchers (most likely being due to the visionary features that are mentioned), then there are several reasons to hold that what happened to Paul was external to him, as indicated by the outward features, especially those mentioned as affecting his traveling companions. Therefore, in addition to any visionary features that are often emphasized by more critical scholars, the accompanying shared features that affected Paul’s companions in the same context likewise need to be balanced fairly.

If these Acts narratives are disallowed or are chiefly downplayed, then such moves serve to emphasize Paul’s own eyewitness statements such as 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, where the apostle employed the language of normal sight, as taken in the immediate context of chapter 15. These appearance reports are buttressed further by Paul’s major teachings on the nature of the resurrection appearances of Jesus as well as the future resurrection bodies of believers, which Paul held to be bodily events including the accompanying transformation. That this latter view of Paul’s position has even been recognized in recent years by a large number of scholars, even though many of these researchers reject the supernatural features themselves, is surely significant.53

Additionally, it must be mentioned once again, as explained above, that even if the appearance to Paul involved more visionary features than the earlier appearances did two to three years before his conversion, as some scholars have held, the chief issue here is not to attempt to decipher the exact features of Paul’s appearance or to assess a comparison between him and the other earlier events.54 After all, according to Acts, Paul’s appearance at least differs from those of the other apostles in that his was subsequent to Jesus’s glorification. By far the most crucial question at this point concerns whether what occurred to Paul or anyone else actually involved the risen Jesus being present rather than outlining the exact form in which this might have happened. After all, establishing the fact of Paul’s experience is more crucial than delineating its form.

Thus, even an appearance like the one to Paul, if it actually occurred, would affirm Jesus’s actual resurrection from the dead in that Jesus presumably would have been present, whatever form that took, as indicated by the observed aspects of Jesus’s appearances.55 So if these appearances were actually detected in some sense by more than one person, particularly in groups of several individuals,56 or if Jesus had been touched by or eaten food with his disciples, the position that these events actually occurred to Jesus himself would be strengthened. This would lessen the possibility of these testimonies simply being due to the internal states or misplaced perceptions of the disciples.57

Finally, amid all the discussion in this chapter regarding the nature of the appearance to Paul, this apostle’s foremost contribution to resurrection studies may well have been his acquaintance and discussions with the other foremost apostles concerning the nature of the gospel message, namely, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John, as Paul narrates in Galatians 1–2. After hearing their details, Paul confirmed that the other apostolic eyewitnesses to the appearances of the risen Jesus were also teaching precisely what he was regarding the truth and nature of these events, so much so that Paul told his readers that they would get the same answers if any of the apostles were asked for the details (1 Cor 15:11). Paul states these comments carefully too, immediately after providing the creedal list of appearances in which the other apostles like Peter and James had also participated (1 Cor 15:3–7).

Ehrman states that Paul’s direct discussions with the other major apostles are among the two most crucial indicators of Jesus’s historicity. Moreover, he admits that this pre-Pauline creed and others like it that were cited by Paul could have come from Jerusalem, were probably already in existence before Paul’s trip to Damascus, and could have been handed down by the same apostles who witnessed the appearances of Jesus. Since Paul met face-to-face in this same city with these apostolic leaders after his conversion, we are therefore close to their original eyewitness testimony here! At any rate, material like this concerning Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection was certainly in circulation at this very early pre-Pauline date.58

Notes

1 Ehrman, New Testament, 290 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

2 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:52 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

3 Koester prefers AD 50–56 in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103–4, while Ehrman takes the general period of AD 50–60 in New Testament, 44.

4 The interpretation of this passage may be the most difficult, including both exegetical as well as theological issues for consideration. For example, it is sometimes disputed whether Paul was speaking in this particular text concerning Jesus’s actual appearance to him, or possibly addressing later spiritual results from this event being manifested in his own life, or speaking of another revelation from the Lord altogether. For example, Wright raises the issue that the Greek preposition en here could emphasize “either god’s [sic] revelation of his son to Paul, or his revelation of his son through Paul.” Or it could mean both at once. Wright thinks that since the context in the very next clause in this sentence indicates Paul’s taking the gospel message to the Gentiles, then God revealing his son through Paul makes the most sense. Regardless, Wright argues that this distinction alleviates the entire discussion of whether or not Paul thought his appearance was a private, internal event. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 378–381 (see chap. 6, n. 44). Still, much of the discussion here has often raised the subject of Paul’s experience, with questions pertaining particularly to the preposition that Paul employs (en emoi). Does in or to make the most sense in this context of addressing the nature of Paul’s experience? Of course, this distinction and angle on the discussion often assumes that Paul was describing the appearance of the risen Jesus in the first place, begging the question from the outset, which is not known for sure according to the commentators. Somewhat surprisingly, both Michael Licona in Resurrection of Jesus, 375–79 (see chap. 2, n. 13), as well as Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 380, show how a wide variety of theological commentators are divided between the meaning of the preposition, lining up on the same sides. Elsewhere in this same epistle, Paul has no trouble speaking in terms of Christ living in him (Gal 2:20), or the Holy Spirit living in believers (4:6), or believers being in Christ (3:28). Licona translates every instance of this phrase in Paul’s Epistles, concluding that the context can indicate either of these major meanings with “equal plausibility.” He therefore concludes that the meaning of en throughout similar contexts in this epistle indicates that the meaning of Gal 1:16 is “unclear.” See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus 376–78. Reinforcing this position is that, rather surprisingly, liberal and conservative commentators alike line up with both major views; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 378; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 380. Overall, many commentators agree that the best way to interpret this passage is to view it through the lens and context of the clearest verses and, most of all, in light of Paul’s overall teaching on the nature of both Jesus’s as well as the believer’s resurrection bodies.

5 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89 (see chap. 2, n. 28).

6 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 129 (see chap. 10, n. 56).

7 Hoover, 130–31.

8 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 4 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Funk, Honest to Jesus, 36, 40 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15 (see chap. 10, n. 130); Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 80, 83 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 47 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

9 Akenson, Saint Saul, esp. 122–25, 137–43, 166–70 (see chap. 3, n. 118). To the contrary, Dale Allison cautions readers concerning overprioritizing Paul to the extreme. See Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 92–93 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

10 Several of the more influential critical scholars who held similar positions include most notably Theodor Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:506–621 (see chap. 10, n. 104). These specific ideas were presented in 3:602–3. Other major scholars who took this general angle included Kirsopp Lake, The Historical Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (New York: Putnam, 1907). The page numbers here are from the second printing (London: Williams and Norgate, 2012; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, n.d.), 267–77, particularly 269; Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 93, 96, 102 (see chap. 10, n. 24); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 49, 69–70, 170–172 (see chap. 10, n. 23). Many other very influential critical scholars followed these researchers and are discussed in detail in the second volume of this set.

11 For a survey of recent scholarship on this contrast, see Gary R. Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 78–92.

12 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus?, 103.

13 Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 8–9, also 173, 296–97, 341–45 (see chap. 10, n. 66).

14 “Dialogue: N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan,” in Stewart, Resurrection of Jesus, 33, cf. 34, 38. Also, Crossan, Historical Jesus, 407 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

15 John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 42–43, 48–51.

16 Many other scholarly examples are provided in the chapters in this study specifically on the Objective Vision Theory, the New Testament teaching on the nature of Jesus’s resurrection body (especially Paul’s view), as well as elsewhere throughout. It is clear, however, that neither Lüdemann nor Crossan are among those scholars who think that Jesus was actually raised from the dead in any sort of actual, living body.

17 John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), passim.

18 Crossan speaks similarly of a range of literal and metaphorical views on this subject; see Crossan, “Resurrection of Jesus,” esp. 55.

19 For example, allowance must be made for Paul’s rather striking comparisons on this subject in 1 Cor 15:35–49, such as the differences between a seed and the adult plant (15:37–38); between human, animal, bird, and fish flesh (15:39); or between heavenly bodies such as the sun, moon, and stars (15:40–41), not to mention the difference between one star and another (15:41).

20 Wenham, Paul, 369 (see excursus 2, n. 55); Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 158 (see chap. 10, n. 146).

21 It should be noted here that the purpose in this chapter is not to introduce and answer naturalistic challenges regarding Paul’s appearance. That overall theme of alternative theses is the topic for volume 2 of this extended study and hence has not been considered in any detail elsewhere in this initial volume. Further, the questions regarding Paul’s appearance need not even be naturalistic in the first place. As mentioned above, many of those scholars who think that Paul’s appearance was less than bodily still accept the reality of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. This discussion is to help clarify and ascertain how much evidence there is for Paul’s appearance, which cannot be done without entertaining these questions.

22 This would presumably be like the distinctions normally made when someone responds by clarifying that while they did indeed hear the one speaking to them, they still missed enough of the crucial words so as to be unclear regarding the overall meaning being communicated.

23 As pointed out by Keener, Acts, 279n1002 (see chap. 9, n. 38).

24 Lüdemann notes that in these three Acts appearance accounts, Paul’s companions both saw the light (108, 110) as well as heard the voice of the speaker (112). Lüdemann also acknowledges that the text “presupposed” that Saul actually did see Jesus (Early Christianity, 114; see chap. 10, n. 70). As mentioned above, Lüdemann does not accept the literal resurrection appearances.

25 Keener, Acts, the quotation is from 279, cf. also 585.

26 As noted by historian Grant, Saint Paul, 104–13 (see excursus 2, n. 106), who also acknowledges the thinness of the data to argue these alternate views about Paul (108–9).

27 I have responded elsewhere to other recent questions regarding Paul’s experience, such as Evan Fales’s contention that Paul may have converted in order to move up the social ladder(!) or that Paul manifested a case of conversion disorder (which has nothing to do with religious conversion). For my response to Fales, see “On the Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” Philosophia Christi 3 (2001). A critique of the conversion disorder hypothesis may be found in more detail in Joseph W. Bergeron and Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter,” Irish Theological Quarterly 80 (2015): 1–16; Habermas, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories,” Christian Research Journal 23 (2001).

28 Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 393, with almost the same words on 395, cf. 158, 345–46.

29 Note carefully that though Craig’s words were cited above, he clearly does not favor the objective-vision view of Jesus’s appearances. For example, see Craig’s clear exposition in “The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus,” in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 1:47–74.

30 Keim, Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3:603.

31 Keim, 3:602–3.

32 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 257–58; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 132–13, 137, 168–69, 176–78, 181, 185, cf. 206–10 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

33 Vermes, Resurrection, 6–7, 75–78 (see chap. 5, n. 14).

34 Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 125 (see chap. 6, n. 173), though Lapide’s view is a little more difficult to ascertain.

35 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 92–93; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, esp. 317, also 225–27, 265–66, 324–25 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Note that Allison is another scholar who does not deny the resurrection appearances of Jesus.

36 It has been suggested that the reason for these differences in Luke–Acts is because Luke did not count Paul’s appearance on the same level as those to the apostles. But this is a difficult thesis to sustain consistently throughout, especially if Luke was Paul’s companion. Further, Luke clearly portrays Paul as having actually seen the resurrected Jesus, as noted above (Acts 9:17, 27; 26:16).

37 For instance, when the Jesus Seminar considered the historicity of Jesus’s actions, they awarded the highest rating to Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 15:8 that he had seen the risen Jesus (454; also 458). The comment from the early pre-Pauline creed just a few verses earlier (15:3) that Jesus had also appeared to Peter was given the second-highest demarcation (453, 36). This in itself indicates the respect that the Jesus Seminar paid to Paul’s teachings. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pages listed here (see chap. 4, n. 84).

38 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144–45.

39 Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem will not be pursued further in this chapter, since they already formed the center of the previous two chapters on the eyewitness testimony and early minimal facts.

40 Martin, Case against Christianity, 81, also 89.

41 Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 130–31.

42 Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94 (see chap. 11, n. 46).

43 Hoover, “Was Jesus’ Resurrection an Historical Event?,” esp. 78, 82 (see chap. 10, n. 40).

44 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 32–35, 38, 40.

45 Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2, 23, 61, 86 111–14 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

46 Sheehan, First Coming, particularly 110, 118 (see excursus 1, n. 16). Sheehan even grants a pre-Markan passion narrative that he dates at about AD 35 (135–46)!

47 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 140–41, 156–57, 251, 254; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, 218.

48 Such as he describes in 2 Cor 4:7–12, 16–18; 7:5–7; 11:23–29; Phil 2:28; cf. Acts 14:19–20; 16:22–24.

49 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 230 (see chap. 5, n. 43).

50 Though no one can be sure, of course, it would have been intriguing to know what was behind the large number of Jewish priests who, we are told, became Christians at an early date, especially since they presumably would have known some important items from the inside too (Acts 6:7b). Like Paul, they also converted.

51 Ehrman, New Testament, 331; cf. 418; Sean McDowell, Fate of the Apostles, 99–101 (see chap. 12, n. 19).

52 McDowell, 113.

53 As indicated in detail in several cases throughout this study on the nature of Jesus’s appearances as well as the resurrected bodies of believers.

54 The latter is done in more than one place throughout this study as well.

55 Of course, alternative suggestions as to the nature of these appearances would also have to be entertained, as has been done in many instances throughout this study.

56 Skeptical scholars who reject the resurrection of Jesus obviously do not wish there to be a strong case for such evidenced appearances, particularly the group citations. That this is indeed the case is indicated by frequently forced or strained arguments against group appearances that sometimes appear to be more obviously contrived or argued more poorly than the data would warrant. Examples include Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, for one instance, especially when compared to his earlier volume, Did Jesus Exist?, 249, or a report from the Jesus Seminar that addresses these group sightings. See “The Jesus Seminar Spring Meeting 1995,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: A Sourcebook, ed. Bernard Brandon Scott (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008), 47.

57 This will be one of the chief considerations in the chapter on objective visions in the next volume and was the reason why this view, though disputed in this volume, was still considered to be a pro-resurrection position according to those who held (or still hold) this view. In such a case, the events actually occurred to the living Jesus himself rather than to just the disciples alone.

58 Many of these relevant details are found in several of Ehrman’s works, such as Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–48, 232, 251, 261–63; How Jesus Became God, 138–40; New Testament, 253, 292–96, 308; and Apocalyptic Prophet, 227–32.

Part 4

The Other Six Known Historical Facts

15

The Empty Tomb

This ongoing study of the death and resurrection of Jesus covers a scholarly spectrum of atheist, agnostic, skeptical, and other self-identified non-Christian scholars as well as those of moderate and conservative persuasions. This spectrum covers a wide range of analytical and interpretative viewpoints. These positions derive chiefly from the last quarter of the twentieth century through the first quarter of the twenty-first century. An interdisciplinary flavor is present in the scholarship as well. Most of the authors are New Testament scholars or theologians, though a fair number of other specialties include historians, world religious experts, plus a few psychologists, medical doctors, philosophers, and specialists needed in relevant cognate areas. During this half century, noticeable developments have emerged, morphed, and moved in new directions.

Some Recent Resurrection Trends

A number of surprising shifts have developed during these past decades, including some quite recently. For example, research from the 1960s and early 1970s indicates that scholars holding more traditional positions typically identified as conservative Catholics or evangelicals. Some of these affirmed views include Jesus being a miracle worker and exorcist, Jesus’s burial tomb being discovered empty, or that Jesus appeared chiefly to his followers after his death and that these events occurred in a bodily manner. Such scholars dated relevant canonical texts relatively early and rejected naturalistic explanations pertaining to various major events discussed here. Some moderate scholars often shared these views as well.

Less moderate and liberal scholars opposed many of these same positions, more freely preferring alternative scenarios to the New Testament reports. Some rejected the resurrection appearances in an outright manner, while others held that Jesus actually appeared to his followers, though in a less than bodily manner.

However, contemporary research indicates some major shifts on some of these issues. For instance, nearly all critical scholars today concede that Jesus was believed to be a miracle worker and exorcist, although the exact nature of these events is often left undetermined. The disciples’ proclamation of the appearance traditions is now widely dated immediately after the crucifixion, perhaps even just a few weeks or months afterward.

That Jesus’s followers believed he appeared bodily now seems to be a majority position, with even many skeptical scholars also conceding at least the early belief in this bodily aspect despite personally rejecting the historicity of the resurrection itself.1 Another surprising trend surfacing recently is that Jesus probably (or at least quite possibly) predicted his death, resurrection, and exaltation.2 This reversal contributes crucial features to Jesus’s overall theistic worldview as well.

Perhaps due at least in part to the emerging expression of bodily resurrection appearances, another remarkable cognate trend during these decades has been the shift in the overall outlook of scholars who now support the belief that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was later found empty. The number of critical researchers who favor an empty tomb appears to have risen somewhat dramatically.3 Indeed, this steady increase has emerged ever since the declining vestiges of Rudolf Bultmann’s influence, which were still pervasive from the 1950s thorugh the mid-1970s.4

In this chapter, I will list some twenty arguments often cited by critical scholars in favor of the historicity of the empty tomb. Several major negative rejoinders raised by critics who reject or question this occurrence will be raised along the way. Throughout, the emphasis will be placed on the major and representative arguments for each position. Some secondary though still worthwhile considerations will also be mentioned, but in a more truncated fashion.

Major Arguments Favoring the Empty Tomb

Of the many arguments favoring the empty tomb, more than a half dozen appear to be of greater evidential strength than the others and are cited more frequently by critical scholars. Following the stronger factors, secondary considerations will also be given. Some of the more substantial rejoinders to these arguments are also aimed at these initial considerations and considered.5

(1) By far the most popular argument in favor of the empty tomb is that in each of the four canonical Gospel narratives, the first witnesses to observe and then deliver the report of the empty tomb were women (Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–9; John 20:1–2). It is sometimes claimed that women in first-century Judaism were disqualified from testifying in a law court.6 However, this assertion has been disputed regarding certain important details as well as clarified further, since it was not strictly or always the case.

For example, citing many ancient Jewish sources, Darrell Bock has pointed out that the rabbis, Mishnah, and Talmud were all mostly clear on this subject in the large majority of their citations. For instance, a woman’s comments may possibly be utilized when providing corroboration for male testimony, but it was generally disregarded if she were giving the witness on her own. The latter rule is repeated often because it was believed that females lacked the character and knowledge to testify.7 There were a few specific exceptions where women could testify, but these were normally in special cases where they might have been thought to have more jurisdiction, as in challenges to virginity or if a man had truly died (due to the women being primarily responsible for the burial of the dead).8 In most testimonial matters, though, women generally could not give evidence or testimony and their word was often of little or no impact. Concerning female testimony, Bock states, “In a Jewish context, they were at best second-tier witnesses.” Bock then concludes, “Although it is false to claim that women were never allowed to be witnesses, it was rarely the case, taking place only in very limited situations.”9

Carolyn Osiek has also authored another excellent overview on this subject regarding the value of a woman’s testimony in ancient Judaism. Besides confirming the facticity of many similar items to those just detailed by Bock, and along with interjecting research on ancient Jewish views, Osiek also notes the crucial fact that similar public views were found throughout the Mediterranean world rather than just among the Jews.10 Thus, the overall pattern appears to be quite clear: there was a greater reluctance to employ female testimony concerning crucial issues or matters outside their realm of influence.

Given these essential societal strictures, it is exceptionally difficult to understand why the four canonical Gospel narratives all agreed on the basic details of their narration, insisting on portraying the scene in this manner in spite of the negative perception it would engender from their ancient readers. After all, such a move would appear to constitute only weakened and severely compromised testimony, especially when qualified men could have been employed as witnesses instead, whether they were there or not! The response portrayed in Luke 24:11 is highly instructive here. Even when the women reported these things to the apostles and others, they received the response expected from the views at that time: “But they [the apostles] did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense” (NIV). But knowing that this attitude would largely be the case much of the time, why would Luke and the other Gospel authors portray the situation this way in the first place?

From another angle, all four canonical Gospel authors were likely living in areas surrounding the general environs of the Mediterranean Sea. For example, researchers often link these Gospels to Rome and Ephesus, located very far away from one another. So why would each of the four authors, presumably living in different locations and telling their own stories, have agreed with each other by narrating their accounts of the women being the ones who first visited Jesus’s tomb unless this had been precisely the case?

Further still, since Luke and John also depict more than one male disciple visiting the tomb to check out these matters after hearing the women’s testimony (see below), would it not have made more sense for at least these two Gospel authors to begin their narratives by describing the male disciples’ trip to the tomb? After all, the men did visit the tomb, so the writers would not have been lying, plus they would have thereby avoided the conundrum of beginning with the likely discredited female testimony.

Therefore, because all four authors began their accounts with the female testimony, it is usually asserted that the unanimous Gospel reports can best be thought of as quite a forceful witness to the authenticity of the report. It fulfills a strong form of the criterion of embarrassment, especially because it rests the crucial event of the empty tomb on what were often taken by the general public to be seemingly flimsy witnesses. Hence, paraphrasing Jesus’s words, “the last being made first” is an intriguing angle on these accounts.

But to proclaim the women as the star witnesses to the empty tomb in this instance could be perceived as a clear act of intellectual suicide. This is precisely why so many commentators count this as a convincing indication that the evangelists regarded the report as being absolutely accurate. Osiek concludes that the women’s testimony “remained because the memory of their role was so persistent that it could not be removed. Its very persistence must indicate that something actually happened that Sunday morning at the tomb.”11 Perkins concludes, “God also chose them as witnesses to the Lord.”12

Comparatively few critical scholars have challenged this major argument. Francis Watson suggests that those who think the tomb narratives actually may have been reports that originated in a Hellenistic context rather than in a more Jewish milieu could annul the problem of the Gospel reports being of Palestinian origin by changing the context, hence vitiating the force of this argument from the women witnesses.13 That the Gospel narratives are a few decades after the events in question might also lend further weight to this critical observation regarding Hellenistic roots instead of having their origins in more Jewish environs.14

However, Osiek’s comment is quite relevant: “The general reluctance in ancient Mediterranean society to see women as public spokespersons or officeholders applies here as well.”15 In other words, the prejudice against female testimony throughout the first-century Mediterranean world extended far beyond Judea, indicating for the purposes of Watson’s argument that even any potential Hellenistic influence from the Mediterranean area would still fail to alleviate the problem of female witnesses to the tomb’s emptiness.

In addition to Osiek, other scholars have also made similar points regarding the status of female testimony. Citing German historian Hans von Campenhausen, Pannenberg states that the Hellenistic option does not solve the issue because several textual items in Mark’s narrative would have been stated otherwise, such as the implication of an appearance account (though it could have been there originally), plus the low view of female testimony was likewise similar in Hellenistic culture.16 Cranfield also points out that the Jewish community was not the only one to express these convictions concerning avoiding female legal testimony whenever possible, for “in Gentile society too their position in regard to the law was inferior to men.”17

Further and quite crucially, a far more serious set of problems has evolved from Watson’s comments three decades ago. Watson’s remark regarding the possibility of a Hellenistic origin for the empty tomb account in Mark 16 very possibly reflects the aftermath of critical views retained in various forms from the holdover influence of the famous religionsgeschichtliche Schule that thrived from the late nineteenth and into the mid-twentieth century. It has already been mentioned above that through the continuing influence of Bultmann’s teachings and other similar-minded scholars, a number of Jewish ideas in early Christianity were frequently attributed to Hellenistic roots.18 But as many researchers have pointed out since Watson’s remarks, many seemingly pagan (mostly Hellenistic) influences can actually be traced to ancient Jewish traditions. The dawn of the Third Quest for the historical Jesus movement crushed most of the final vestiges of this Bultmannian Hellenistic ideation, at least regarding our understanding of the central Christian doctrines.19

Atheistic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman attests that he understands the force of the empty tomb argument based on the female testimony because he used to hold this position himself. But since studying the matter “more deeply” he has since detected the “real flaw” here. The result is that Ehrman now argues against this tide of recent critical scholarship by raising a few reasons why the female testimony is not as powerful as he once thought.

For starters, according to Ehrman the testimony of the female witnesses could have been invented, with the women disciples themselves having made up the initial oral reports! After all, they were treated better in Jesus’s ministry than in the ancient world as a whole, so they would not be viewed so poorly. Further, since women generally prepared the dead for burial anyway, as in the Gospels, it would be natural for them to finish the process on Sunday morning and be described as such. Moreover, the male disciples had fled during Jesus’s arrest, perhaps even to Galilee, so they may not have been in the vicinity anyway, leaving the women to handle the task. Lastly, perhaps Mark himself invented the story (though Ehrman explains that he personally does not think this was the case), especially in that Mark frequently portrays the disciples in a bad light, so one more negative occasion here should not be surprising.20

However, each of Ehrman’s reasons is misplaced, even quite strongly so. As farfetched as the women fabricating the entire story may sound, the chief point is not whether the women could have spread false reports. One of the major problems here would concern who would have believed them even if they had done precisely this? We have noted that even the male disciples scoffed at the women’s story when they shared their testimony with them, with Ehrman himself mentioning precisely this same passage!21 Sure, the women prepared Jesus’s body for burial, but according to all four Gospels, so did Joseph of Arimathea, while John also adds Nicodemus. So why not at the very least also make one or both of these two men codiscoverers of the empty tomb, or begin the accounts with the other male disciples who went to the tomb later that first day, as mentioned above? It could hardly be objected that these several men who either helped bury Jesus or went to the tomb later would not have dramatically increased the value of the women’s case!

Moreover, while it is the case that Mark 14:50 and Matt 26:56 relate that the men fled when Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane,22 this does not require them to have left the geographical area! For example, all four Gospels narrate that Peter remained behind in Jerusalem for at least some time, while Mark 16:7 could imply that Peter was still in town on Sunday morning. The Fourth Gospel places John at the crucifixion. As noted, Luke and John both relate that Peter, John, or both disciples were still in the area and went to the tomb for themselves after the women did on that initial day. Luke and John also state that the apostles remained in Jerusalem the night of Jesus’s resurrection.23 Besides, why were the women commanded to go tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee if the men had already gone there? And were the women expected to journey for a few days by themselves just to deliver this message? If respectability is at all a goal in relating the gospel message, why not make Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Peter, or John part of the original entourage to the tomb?

Lastly, although Ehrman is right that Mark is certainly capable of painting the disciples negatively, he is still careful to point out more than once that he does not think Mark invented the story. Ehrman’s question here is possibly a “what if” concern anyway.24 Besides, even if Mark is sometimes less than positive toward the disciples, why should that mean he preferred to have the women provide the testimony by themselves?

Ehrman’s less-than-moving reasons notwithstanding, the ancient bias against female witnesses was simply too pervasive and powerful throughout the ancient Mediterranean world to try to defend their being the only initial observers, especially when all four Gospels agree in relating this same story. It is quite likely that these stories would never have been made up at all, since it was exceptionally likely that the prejudicial views would have caused the message to be opposed, if not rejected outright, anywhere in the ancient Mediterranean region, just as Osiek and others note well. It simply would have been an incredibly counterproductive move and exceptionally likely that at least one of the authors would have redacted earlier traditions with females going to the tomb, by beginning the story with the males heading there instead.25

It is being argued, then, that unless the point was to relate what actually happened, thereby making the women the chief eyewitnesses to the empty tomb, the story in all four Gospels would have been told quite differently at a number of places, with men at least as key witnesses in the original trip. Otherwise, there are simply too many indications that the women would never have been the focus. Even the disciples themselves are said to have objected strongly to their testimony! What more do we need to indicate this here?26

So there is no question that citing male witnesses would have been better received. So once again, the question is: Why cite women observers at all, let alone unanimously, without any male accompaniment, and as the highlighted witnesses? Even though Jesus treated woman differently, the focus is to present the case for the Christian gospel message going forth to unbelievers. The way all four Gospels do it simply exhibits very poor judgment, unless that was precisely the way it happened.

It must be kept in mind that early Christianity was an evangelistic faith, with the Gospels and Acts highlighting the facts that the apostles and others were proclaiming the message everywhere.27 This indicates that the Gospel authors would have wanted to place their “best foot forward,” so to speak. Making women the chief witnesses to a vital message like the empty tomb would not have been the best way to achieve this goal. Otherwise, how else can we explain that even during the very brief interval before the development of the early creedal statements such as 1 Cor 15:3–7 and the Acts sermon summaries (see below), the women have already disappeared from the retelling? Or why is it said that the apostles themselves scoffed at the women’s tomb report (Luke 24:11)?

For reasons such as these, the majority of recent critical scholars support the notion that female testimony is the one of the strongest, if not the very best, reasons to accept the historicity of the empty tomb. Other contrary options are suggested less often, along with a number of critiques against each of these challenges, plus many other positive conclusions.28

(2) Few scholars appear to deny that Jerusalem was the birthplace of the earliest Christian preaching. As James D. G. Dunn attests, “The story of the empty tomb was probably being told in Jerusalem shortly after the event.”29 This would presumably be the least likely location for teaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead if his grave, presumably located just a very short distance away, had still been occupied. After all, some questioning followed by a brief walk could solve the matter in a minimal amount of time. Walter Kasper considers this as the “most important argument” since otherwise the proclamation of the empty tomb “would not have lasted there a single day.”30 Stephen Davis agrees that this location is one of the best two indications that Jesus’s tomb was empty.31 Craig A. Evans approvingly cites another comment that even if early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection, their “preaching . . . would have been greatly inhibited had the actual body of Jesus been lying yet in a tomb.”32 Other scholars agree regarding the historicity and significance of the Jerusalem connection.33

Yet, some scholars have offered objections. Atheist philosopher Michael Martin has responded that if Acts reported accurately that the initial Christian preaching of the resurrection did not begin until fifty days after Jesus’s ascension, then Jesus’s corpse “would have decayed sufficiently to have made identification impossible.”34 In other words, the body of an unidentifiable individual could have been discovered in the tomb if anyone had checked.

But Martin’s retort misses the point entirely. The clear and repeated Christian claim was that Jesus’s tomb was empty, not that there was indeed a body inside but that since it could not be identified, it was not Jesus! Here is the chief point to be made: if any body was found in Jesus’s tomb, the Christian claim that the burial chamber was empty would have been falsified. Besides, it would be simply incredible to imagine that discovering an unidentifiable body in the sepulcher, especially one measuring approximately Jesus’s height and weight, perhaps with still-recognizable crucifixion wounds, would not blunt and weaken seriously the resurrection claim! Thus, even an unidentifiable corpse with wounds in its wrists or feet would most likely be that of Jesus! Moreover, bodies were at least somewhat identifiable a year later when Jews reburied their relatives’ bones in ossuaries.35

Further, medical examiners have pointed out that even in damper and warmer climates that would definitely be more conducive to decay than the arid Jerusalem area, key details on dead bodies, such as major wounds, can be determined significantly even after fifty days.36 Such information, then—that the proclamation was that Jesus’s tomb was empty, as well as today’s medical knowledge about decaying bodies—would disprove Martin’s supposition on both scores.

We have already seen the charge that the Gospel reports are late, even in Mark, so perhaps the empty tomb was not a part of the earliest message.37 However, at least a couple of the arguments mentioned in this chapter and elsewhere in this study indicate that much earlier sources that predated Mark were used in this text, which date as early as the AD 30s, such as the pre-Passion source that was probably employed by Mark, plus the exceptionally early comment from the Acts sermon summaries in 2:29–31 and 13:28–31,38 also indicate Jesus’s burial in a Jerusalem tomb after his crucifixion. Ehrman, along with perhaps a majority of other critical scholars, even allows many of these comeback considerations.39

As a result, the Jerusalem location for the burial of Jesus’s body appears to be a major argument that favors the emptiness of his burial tomb. It was located far too close for comfort to the center of early Christian preaching and teaching for its emptiness to not have been the case.

(3) Most scholars also realize that the empty tomb accounts in the Gospels are multiply attested, being found in either three or four of the five independent Gospel sources, namely, Mark, M, John, and probably L. Since critical scholars often affirm that even the presence of at least two independent Gospel traditions (such as Mark and John) increases the likelihood that a report is early and possibly authentic,40 this is another major conclusion in favor of this event. As ancient historian Paul Maier asserts, “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”41 Hence, a number of scholars also rank this consideration among the very best indications that Jesus’s tomb was empty.42

It was just mentioned above that some researchers think Mark invented the account of the empty tomb story; thus they deny the existence of earlier sources.43 This challenge was treated directly above, and relevant comments and sources are cited throughout this chapter with counterarguments directed against elements of this charge, rather than repeating these on each occasion.

The early Acts sermon summaries are often if not usually dated to very soon after the crucifixion, emphasizing this brief time gap as well as increasing the multiple attestation of sources at these points.44 Portions contained within Acts 2:14–36 and 13:16–41 that teach that Jesus’s body was buried but did not decompose are often dated to this early period.45 Further, the pre-Markan Passion Narrative also increases the likelihood that the empty tomb accounts were circulating in the 30s or a little later.46 These are a few of the responses to the critical thesis that Mark was the earliest, original source of the empty tomb story. This challenge would be disproven by the existence of other prior sources. These last few responses to these critical retorts will be addressed in their own right below. Other potential responses also have been offered to this challenge as well.47

(4) Most recent scholars maintain or at least concede the potential force of the early pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–4 and its implication of an empty tomb. The threefold kai hoti clauses, especially in a Jewish context, serve as the connective terms moving the listener from the reality of Jesus’s death to his burial, resurrection, and appearances. The entire sequence here indicates that the body that had died was the one that was raised and that appeared afterward. In other words, the narrative process describes a progression that does not stop until the end—the body that died was later raised and brought to life.48

While many scholars generally acknowledge Paul’s sequence of phrases from the early creedal statement,49 some do object that the apostle nowhere else discusses or directly mentions the empty tomb.50 It should be noted that this absence in Paul is often taken to weaken the force of the positive argument here.

That being said, this objection appears to conceal an argument from silence. That Paul does not mention an empty tomb hardly eliminates automatically the earlier point taken from the pre-Pauline creed. The implication still remains, and many would conclude strongly so, that if Jesus was dead, buried, raised, and appeared, then this fourfold sequence of words probably entails the very early conviction that Jesus’s resting place was no longer occupied, precisely because the body which was buried emerged again later, even if transformed. These verbs also occur in a context where the Greek terms anastasis “standing up, rising,” and egeirō “to rise up,” indicate bodily events,51 so it certainly appears that this sequence most likely requires an empty burial chamber.

There are other relevant and rather intriguing considerations from Paul as well, such as his metaphor in Rom 6:3–4 (thought by some scholars to be another early creedal statement) that believers were baptized with Christ Jesus unto his death, and likewise, “we were therefore buried with him . . . in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead . . ., we too may live a new life” (NIV). While this of course is hardly a direct historical statement, it is nonetheless clear in this context that Paul considered that the Jesus who was baptized, dead, and buried is also the very person who was raised from the dead as well—just as believers progress through baptism as a symbolic death and burial, to proceed onward into their new lives. Thus, the same sequence is also manifest in this text, moving from start to finish here as well.

Further still, in Rom 8:11, the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead “will also give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit” (NIV). Again, this indicates that Paul apparently considered that the same human body before death is the one which will be raised, though transformed. The process is definitely not one where Jesus’s burial and resurrection were somehow discontinuous. Hence, this favors to some extent the interpretation of perhaps most scholars regarding the process from Jesus’s death to his resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15. In each of these cases, according to Paul’s thought, the result most likely would concern a real body along with a vacated burial chamber.

Driving home this last crucial point, in addition to the major studies listed just above, John Granger Cook recently published one of the most detailed word studies ever on the relevant terms for resurrection within a Jewish background.52 The detailed arguments in his publications will be followed up below, but he begins his large volume on this topic in his introductory chapter, “Resurrection Language,” with the semantics of resurrection. Specifically in terms of the topic in this chapter, Cook states firmly his “conclusion that Paul could not have conceived of the resurrection of Jesus without assuming an empty tomb.” Further, Cook argues “against the thesis that there is a fundamental difference between Paul’s conception of the resurrection body and that of the Gospels.” What follows is that, given Paul’s clear position on the nature of Jesus’s body, the apostle did not need to specify the emptiness of Jesus’s tomb at all. The use of his Greek terms relates that story.53

Such a position needs to be unpacked in more detail. Here the emphasis is on the initial salvo that addresses the relevance of Paul’s not mentioning the empty tomb directly, either in the early creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 or elsewhere. The remainder of this response will be developed in detail below regarding the predominant Jewish view overall.

(5) Both Acts 2:29–32 and Acts 13:28–37 (especially the latter), are usually identified as some of the more important early sermon summaries, predating the biblical book in which they appear. These two messages are attributed to Peter and Paul respectively. The Acts 2 text mentions and implies that Jesus’s body was placed in a tomb from which he was raised and appeared without experiencing any bodily decay, while the Acts 13 passage is closer to proclaiming this. The Acts 13 account could at least potentially help answer the question concerning Paul’s belief in the empty tomb. As Allison declares, at least 13:28–32 “incorporates, as almost universally recognized, a pre-Pauline formula.”54

Similarly, Acts potentially involves the presence of at least several of these very early oral sermon snippets of material, both here and elsewhere in the book. These texts are usually taken as being pre-Pauline, as affirmed by many recent and influential critical scholars.55 For example, even Ehrman dates many of these Acts traditions to the 30s, within just a couple years after the crucifixion!56 Further, Ehrman specifically includes a portion of the Acts 13 passage among these early texts—what he terms “the preliterary traditions of Acts” or the “pre-Lukan tradition.”57 Yet he neglects to use this passage to argue for the empty tomb, since while dating the material exceptionally early to make one of his key points on Christology, he still rejects Paul as the stated author of this sermon and holds that the part about the tomb was invented!58

(6) One of the more prominent results of recent research is that perhaps even the majority of contemporary scholars think the data indicate that Mark utilized an earlier source that predates his Gospel, a text that may well have included the empty tomb account. This subject has been mentioned more than once in this chapter, and only a few points will be referred to briefly.59 In one major study, New Testament scholar Marion Soards surveyed the research of thirty-four scholars and concluded that there was probably an early, pre-Markan Passion Narrative.60

Questions still remain, of course, regarding this pre-Markan source, including where such a text may have ended. Soards nuances his response, still deciding that the presence of questions about this source fails sufficiently to “lead to a strictly negative conclusion with respect to our ability to know anything about the preMarcan PN [Passion Narrative]. I think not.”61 Allison mentions several positive reasons for the existence of this narrative, including the difference between Mark 15:47 and 16:1 (which he notes has never been explained adequately), as well as the presence of several hapax legomena in this text and the interruption of 16:7 beginning with “but” (alla) and breaking the flow of 16:5–6 to 8. Allison thus favors the view that “Mk 16:1–8 derives from a pre-Markan narrative.”62

(7) N. T. Wright and others have argued at length that, although a variety of views may be found in the ancient Jewish literature, the predominant position in Second Temple Judaism was that of a personal embodied hereafter. This is especially the case when these ancient Jewish texts are contrasted with the afterlife language in the corresponding pagan writings before the second century.

Further, reflecting their Jewish roots, the Greek terms anastasis and egeirō in the New Testament are clearly employed as well. When applied to Jesus’s resurrection, this would necessitate an empty tomb and a bodily resurrection.63 Wright summarizes the matter: “When Paul speaks of resurrection . . . it is to be assumed . . . in either the pagan or the Jewish world, that this referred to the body being raised to new life, leaving an empty tomb behind it.”64

To be sure, other views regarding the nature of existence in the afterlife were held widely, especially in the pagan literature. These would include the immortality of the soul or the existence of ghosts, spirits, and so on. But the force of Wright’s argument is that whenever these specific terms for resurrection were employed in the literature, they always and only referred to bodily events. Though Wright has been questioned in a few cases for perhaps overemphasizing the lack of exceptions to his views, it appears that most scholars have agreed with his assessment.65

Though we will not be able to explore in this chapter the details of these various arguments,66 related views on Jesus’s bodily resurrection appearances have been making a perhaps unexpected comeback in many current studies.67 In a rather surprising but very important recent trend that would have been found much more rarely just a few decades ago, even a growing number of skeptical scholars who actually reject the resurrection event itself still think that the New Testament teaching (including Paul’s own view) involved Jesus’s risen body.68

Not to miss the overall point here, regardless of whether or not scholars accept the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances personally, if the New Testament authors teach that Jesus’s appearances were bodily in nature (in juxtaposition to earlier critical thought), this move very much favors the direction of the early belief that Jesus’s burial tomb was empty. It also would be expected to mean that wherever Jesus was buried (including a pit or some unknown place elsewhere, as in the ground) would be empty afterward! It seems that this would be required by the very nature of Jewish thought on resurrection at precisely this juncture (Paul included) and is another direction from which to arrive at an empty tomb message before the writing of the Gospels. Additional considerations below also indicate that the empty tomb reports date from much earlier than the Gospels themselves.

(8) According to reports in Matthew (28:11–15), Justin Martyr (Dial. 108), and Tertullian (Spect. 30), the Jewish leaders not only failed to disprove the Christian assertion that Jesus’s tomb was empty, but their explanation that Jesus’s disciples stole his dead body actually admitted the phenomenon in question—that of the empty tomb. Further, the leaders continued this teaching for many years afterwards.

Granted, Matthew is the only canonical source for this account, though it is also reported independently along with many additional details in the later Gospel of Peter (8:29–11:49).69 Still, it is unquestionably the case that most scholars across the spectrum reject the story of the guards at the tomb as a historical report,70 perhaps even a subsequent Christian response to the critical proclamation by some that the body had been stolen.71 Further, Justin Martyr and Tertullian are quite late as sources and could have gotten their information from another late source. So is this the end of the story?

Conversely, the Jewish tradition never mentions that Jesus’s body was simply left on the cross to rot and be eaten by wild animals and/or buried in a common grave. The Jewish tradition fails to mention any of these options.72 It would have been quite convenient for ancient critics to have argued very naturally that the Christian preaching was seriously mistaken precisely because Jesus was not even buried in a tomb! But we cannot rely on an argument from silence here.

It must be remembered that the force of this last overall argument does not depend on discovering evidence for the placement of guards outside Jesus’s tomb. In general, that the Jewish leaders reportedly devised other nonnatural reasons to object to Jesus’s healings and exorcisms (such as attributing these events to the power of Satan, accusing Jesus of healing on the Sabbath, or objecting to his forgiving a man’s sins) while tacitly admitting the occurrences in question or just reacting in relative silence, can be its own admission. It thus remains insightful that the available enemy attestation by the Jewish leadership never disproves Jesus’s miracles, the Christian claim that Jesus’s tomb was empty, or his appearances to others after his crucifixion even though the events occurred in their immediate geographical region, despite having at their disposal both a motive as well as the means to act. Rather, their explanations conceded that these acts occurred, or at least allowed the message to stand in one way or another.73

Among the majority of critical scholars who favor the historicity of the empty tomb, these eight arguments are generally employed as the stronger or more popular reasons. Several other critical rejoinders have also been proposed. Still, as mentioned already, a clear majority of commentators has concluded that the available evidence favors the existence of the empty tomb (see analysis below).

Other Considerations Supporting the Empty Tomb

This study of recent resurrection publications also uncovers a wide variety of additional factors that add varying degrees of support for the historicity of the empty tomb, with some definitely being stronger than others, often depending on the researchers themselves. Some of these details appear chiefly in more scholarly treatments, thus critical challenges to these reasons sometimes tend to occur less commonly or are not as accessible. A number of these positive arguments for the empty tomb will be mentioned only very briefly and are often arranged in groups with related content while including some overlap.

(9) Other major studies have indicated that the presence of early and specific traditions behind the accounts of Peter, John, or other early Christian authors checking out the female testimonies to the empty tomb in Luke 24 and John 20 provide some potential backup to these initial testimonies. Though slightly different, these accounts point in similar directions.74

(10) There are potential Semitisms and other distinctively Jewish language features in the empty tomb accounts, such as “the first day of the week” (Mark 16:2), the name “Miriam” (Matt 27:61; 28:1), and the phrase “bowed down their faces to the earth” (Luke 24:5).75 As with the commonly recognized historical criterion of Semitic terms in general, these may also point to an earlier origin for the empty tomb accounts.76

(11) In addition to mentioning the women as the primary witnesses, the empty tomb accounts cite the names of even obscure women such as Salome (Mark 16:1) and Joanna (Luke 24:10), plus the largely unknown male disciple Cleopas along with another unnamed disciple whose gender is unidentified (Luke 24:13–32).77 These names are presumably not the best way to highlight this amazing story by neglecting to tell it with the greatest possible impact,78 hence the additional examples also make less sense unless, once again, this is what actually occurred. Richard Bauckham’s thesis in these cases is that such tendencies, and especially the usage of proper names, is indicative of the presence of eyewitness testimony.79

(12) Further indications of early empty tomb traditions include observations that Sunday instead of Saturday had become the primary Christian gathering day at an early date, before the composition of the Gospels (1 Cor 16:2; cf. the practice reported in Acts 20:7). That Sunday became the major celebration day of the week for Christian worship, sharing, and celebration of the risen Christ most likely signifies and points to the initial events that occurred on that day of the week, even though the empty tomb fell into the background quite quickly.80

(13) By ancient historical standards, there is no need to acquiesce to the critical notion that the Gospel accounts were somehow late. All four canonical works were written well within the expectations of ancient historiography, with accounts that agree remarkably well at least in terms of their depiction of the broad demarcations in these accounts.81

It is noteworthy in this regard that when Ehrman provides his standards for information about the historical Jesus, he accepts texts written in the first 100 years after Jesus’s crucifixion, which is well beyond his date for John’s Gospel.82 While Ehrman notes that the Gospels exhibit various problematic issues, many historical facts about Jesus can definitely still be determined, including most of those deemed in this study to be the most crucial of all.83 Further, there are also reasons that various historical aspects in the Gospels may be ascertained and trusted in spite of the problematic issues.84 In fact, Ehrman even considers Jesus to be the best-attested figure in the ancient world!85

(14) A few other positive considerations include the lack of legendary development in the empty tomb accounts that one might expect if the accounts were written later. There is a distinct absence of Christian tomb veneration or observance of a martyr cult, both of which were popular in the ancient world. Such adoration often occurred at the locations where individuals died or were buried and celebrated the end of that person’s life.86

(15) Perkins explains that “the tomb stories show little elaboration of miraculous detail” or references to Old Testament teachings as well, which might have been the case especially if these were later stories that developed over time. That the women basically came to the sepulcher and left rather quickly in a perplexed state of mind, seemingly wondering what to make of the situation or if someone had moved the body, points instead to these reports being early and simple. Differing details were left unresolved. The women even appear rather reticent and comparatively few descriptions or even secondary details are announced. There is not much emphasis on the tomb location either, beyond the general area. That the tomb was truly empty would explain the lack of details or interest in the place itself.87

(16) Teachings or claims regarding Jesus’s empty tomb are hardly the object of much apologetic emphasis in the early church.88 The New Testament notoriety clearly centers on the appearance tradition surrounding the risen Jesus, which is used as an apologetic argument, yet the empty tomb is not used much in the same manner. This event even gets left out of the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere!

(17) Some scholars have argued that even if Matthew’s account of the guards at the tomb is not a straightforward historical account, it could still provide a couple of “backdoor” indications of the empty tomb. For example, Davis points out that whether or not the guard story (or some portion of it) was concocted in the early church, it still “constitutes a powerful argument for the reliability of the empty-tomb tradition.” The reason is rather straightforward: unless the tomb had actually been vacated, there would be very little impetus to narrate the false story in the first place.89

(18) In a fairly recent PhD dissertation on the subject, Finnish scholar Matti Kankaanniemi argues that for multiple reasons like some in this essay, the story of the guard stationed at the tomb is actually a pre-Matthean tradition. Yet he concludes, “I tend to regard the existence of the guards at the tomb an invention of the Jewish opponents of the Christ-believers.” Like Davis, then, even this Jewish counterexplanation could have been due to Jesus’s burial tomb itself being discovered empty soon after the crucifixion.90 But could Kankaanniemi be correct about the pre-Matthean traditional elements but mistaken about the conclusion that the account of the guard was still invented? In other words, could Matthew have utilized an early tradition that actually did supply a basis for the guards actually being present at the tomb?

(19) Contributing to an overall assessment of the empty tomb are a couple of considerations of a slightly different sort drawn from the failure of the opposing case. These notions appear to work in the opposite direction as pointers to the empty tomb. To start, no early or ancient sources denied the empty tomb. As Pannenberg asserts, there is “no early evidence that anyone, either Christian or non-Christian, ever alleged that Jesus’ tomb still contained his remains.”91 There is also a decided absence in the ancient times of other suggestions, such as Jesus’s body being buried in a common grave or garbage pit, or there being a lack of knowledge regarding where his body was placed and so forth. Hence, these alternate views may be un-supported by any ancient evidence altogether. It then should be recognized that the strongest historical considerations themselves point toward the authenticity of this historical fact.

(20) Davis extends the argument further along similar lines regarding today’s challenges, mainly that the critics’ comebacks are quite often weak and structured poorly in their attempt to show that the empty tomb is an unreliable tradition. Davis’s examples include the charges that differences or discrepancies in the Gospel accounts militate against overall facticity, the circular notion that the doctrine of bodily resurrection appearances is so obviously late that its very presence reveals its unreliability, and claims that the empty tomb plays quite an insignificant role in New Testament teaching.92 Once again, the rejoinders to objections like these continue to showcase the strong case for Jesus’s burial tomb being found empty.

(21) Finally, the case for the empty tomb here closes on a more ambiguous note. A marble slab reportedly discovered in Nazareth and termed the “Ordinance of Caesar” has a long track record, with the research going back decades. Its Greek inscription warns that robbing graves, moving dead bodies, or disturbing seals on the gravestones is punishable by death. Up until recently, it has usually been thought that the decree may have originated with either Emperor Tiberius or Claudius, which would place it between the time of Jesus and AD 54. Why, asks ancient historian Paul Maier, was the death penalty required in Palestine at this time instead of paying a large fine, as in similar Roman edicts elsewhere?93 Of course, the location of Nazareth is intriguing as well.

Was such a punishment occasioned by the report of Jesus’s resurrection, by the rumor that Jesus’s disciples had stolen his body as in Matt 28:11–15, or by something else that is unrelated altogether? Its origin cannot be known for sure at the present time. It should be noted that, whatever it might be, the inscription at least seems to bear some implicit and rare confirmation of the practice of sealing tombs during Roman times, as mentioned in Matt 27:66.94

However, a recent article in Science News by Bruce Bower reports that the stone tablet actually may be of Turkish provenance and that it was possibly issued by Caesar Augustus (23 BC to AD 14).95 The earlier report that the stone was found in Nazareth still raises intriguing questions. The jury remains out on this find.

Recent Scholars Weigh in on the Empty Tomb Accounts

So where does the research on the empty tomb stand at this point?96 Many well-known scholars have weighed in on these matters over the years, both recapping what various investigations have shown as well as where the majority of scholars line up on the overall question of the empty tomb.

For instance, after mentioning some key New Testament passages, German scholar Jacob Kremer summarizes the existence of typical critical complaints, such as the empty tomb not being listed in the oldest sources and that some of the accounts contain “discrepancies,” or objecting to the “miraculous absence of the dead body.” Then Kremer provides several major counterresponses, such as the empty tomb accounts preserving the “historical heart of the tradition,” that the location of the tomb was known, the impetus gathered from the testimony of the women, and that no one produced a body from the Jerusalem tomb. Further, the emptiness of the tomb was not disputed even by the opponents, but “only understood differently,” and there is no analogy in the world to this “powerful action of God.”97

Kremer then draws an important conclusion from these results, asserting that “in spite of these issues, the vast majority of exegetes cling to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Here he lists the names of twenty-eight scholars who agree.98

Another German theologian, Rudolf Schnackenburg, states similarly that “most exegetes accept the historicity of the empty tomb.”99 Like Kremer, O’Collins listed the names of thirty scholars who defend the empty tomb.100 Moreover, Mark Waterman comments in his doctoral dissertation, “Not a few, but rather a majority, of contemporary scholars believe that there is some historical kernel in the empty tomb tradition.”101

These influential scholars bear strong testimony from their own research that the dominant view among scholars in relevant fields is that the reality of the empty tomb is the predominant position. Kremer, a specialist on this subject, explains that his study indicates that the empty tomb is even held by “the vast majority” of researchers.

Since many critical scholars have addressed this subject of the empty tomb and have either provided or hinted strongly at a particular view, I myself have reported in years past that perhaps “a strong majority” of even as much as 75 percent of the scholars favored the empty tomb tradition, while about 25 percent of critical scholars still disfavored it.102 More recently, in April 2008, I emailed Michael Licona an updated check that indicated that my positive numbers may have declined to a little lower than 75 percent.103

Over the years, many persons have inquired regarding updated counts of how the views of the majority of researchers in my study were inclined on this issue.104 Specifically for this present survey, the question was revisited in very careful detail that incorporated the earlier results plus going far beyond those to tallies including new researchers not tracked in my 2008 report. At present, hundreds of scholars who have provided their views have been counted, with those who favor the historicity of the empty tomb having risen to 80.1 percent in my personal survey.105 Those who reject the empty tomb presently stand at 19.9 percent.106 Many scholars from both persuasions have been listed already in this chapter and elsewhere throughout this study. These conclusions are consistent with other surveys or comments provided above by Kremer, Schnackenburg, O’Collins, Waterman, Craig, and Licona.

Of course, it is quite important to recognize that the historicity of events is definitely not settled by scholarly head counts. Hence, these figures have no actual bearing on whether or not Jesus’s burial location was discovered to be empty. Thus, the actual historical truth of the matter is not adjusted one bit when such numbers vary. To a certain degree, then, the interest in these sorts of counts perhaps betrays the hint that some readers may think these tallies represent more than percentages alone. It should be remembered that the first criterion supporting the minimal facts concerns the state of the actual data, and those arguments were already described at the outset of this chapter.

Conclusion

Recent research indicates that a majority of contemporary scholars who comment on this topic recognize the historicity of the empty tomb. After discussing the subject, historian Michael Grant concludes: “The historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb” since the normal exercise of historical research argues that “the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”107

Former Oxford University historian William Wand makes a similar comment regarding the empty tomb. He states, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour of it, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”108

Theologian James D. G. Dunn evaluates the data in a comparable manner: “I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty. As a matter of historical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points firmly to the conclusion that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. . . . The chief alternative interpretations involve greater improbabilities.”109 Andrew Ter Ern Loke similarly developed a thesis of limiting the possible number of alternate responses to the empty tomb and then dealing with each one.110

Though comparatively little has been mentioned in this chapter specifically regarding eyewitness testimony, the chief assertion made repeatedly is that a large number of sources point in that direction. Most reports of the empty tomb have at their heart the element of reliable testimony.

Few scholars have stated this better than Dunn. Answering the question of where this empty tomb tradition emerged, Dunn responded, “The most obvious answer is: Those who were involved in the episode, those who experienced the impact of the event, those who in speaking of what they have thus seen and heard gave the tradition its definitive and lasting shape.”111 Lest we miss the most direct point here, Dunn asserts elsewhere, “Here then we find a tradition (Mark 16:1–8 pars.) which like most of the others examined earlier, seems to have begun as the expression of eyewitness testimony, quickly prized because of its potential import and soon told and told again in the circles of first disciples as a basic component of their conviction that God had raised Jesus from the grave.”112 An empty tomb cannot by itself, of course, prove that a resurrection occurred. Yet, the historical data that most scholars find convincing could serve as a preliminary set of building blocks or pointers in a case for the central historical event of Christianity, as well as helping to delineate that Jesus appeared in a bodily manner after his death.113 As Dunn commented above and many other scholars have also remarked, it is very difficult to formulate a reasonable alternative theory that explains all of our data and yet still denies that Jesus’s tomb was vacated.

Notes

1 As explained in my essay “Mapping the Recent Trend,” 78–92 (see chap. 4, n. 17).

2 See especially Licona, “Did Jesus Predict His Death,” (see excursus 1, n. 78). More discussion on this topic is also included in Licona’s excellent volume Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

3 Judging from some publications and even questions received from believers and skeptics alike, this is one of the areas that has drawn a good deal of interest.

4 Examples of Bultmann’s positions on such matters include “New Testament and Mythology,” 34–35, 39 (see chap. 5, n. 29); “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 64–70, 72 (see chap. 5, n. 28); Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1958), 14–18, 32–38; cf. John Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (New York: Harper and Row, 1955), 181–90, for a synopsis, evaluation, and critique of Bultmann’s views of the separation of historical data from the tenets of faith, such as with Jesus’s resurrection. Actually, historical events that were in approximation to the early gospel message were rarely even discussed in detail by Bultmann.

5 Note that throughout this chapter, the individual footnotes include some scholars who may grant a portion of a positive response but not all of it, or who consider themselves to be open to a position, or even seem to embrace it but whose position is very difficult to ascertain for sure. Some of these authors ultimately reject the reason being given. These scholars are designated with a “cf.” in this chapter, precisely to differentiate them from the clearer supporters of the assertion. Obviously, those so designated who clearly do not favor the empty tomb are not tallied as if they did so.

6 For instance, Michael Goulder states, “Only male witnesses are valid in Jewish jurisprudence.” See Goulder, “The Empty Tomb,” Theology 79 (1976): 211.

7 Some of the ancient Jewish sources that address these distinctives include Deut 17:6; 19:15; m. Shevu’ot 4:1; Rosh Hashanah 1:8; m. Sanhedrin 3:4; b. Bava Qamma 88a; Sifre Deut 190; also Josephus, Ant. 4.219; 17.121.

8 For these references, see m. Ketubbot 1:6–7; 9:4; m. Yevamot 15:1–2; Josephus, Ant. 15.82–84; 16.213–219; 16.328–331; 17.121.

9 For these details, see Darrell L. Bock, “A Note on Women as Witnesses and the Empty Tomb Resurrection Accounts,” in Beck and Licona, Raised on the Third Day, 257–61, quotations on 260 (see chap. 7, n. 20); also Robert Gordon Maccini, Her Testimony Is True: Women as Witnesses according to John (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 77–79, 161–71, 225–33.

10 Carolyn Osiek, “The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 97–107; for the comment on this being the normal view in the Mediterranean area, see 104. Additional sources include Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Theological Studies 48 (1987): 631; Martin Hengel, “Maria und die Frauen als Zeugen,” in Abraham unser Vater: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 243–56; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 40, cf. 38 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Woman on Jewish Law (New York: KTAV, 1978), 73–80; Judith Romney Wegner, Chattel or Person? The Status of Women in the Midrash (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 120–26, 188–89; Pierre Benoit, “Marie Magdeleine et les disciples au tombeau selon Jean 20,1–18,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festscrift für Joachim Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), 141–52.

11 Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 106.

12 Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 41.

13 Perhaps Watson has Bultmann and some of his followers in mind here, as in Bultmann’s works, “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 68–69; “New Testament and Mythology,” 14–16, 34–35; Jesus Christ and Mythology, 16–17.

14 Francis Watson, review of Jesus Risen: The Resurrection by Gerald O’Collins, in Theology 91 (1988): 144. The suggestions of Hellenistic origins of the empty tomb narratives plus the Gospels being too old to help will be addressed at several points below and otherwise in this study.

15 Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 104.

16 Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” esp. 131 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

17 Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 168 (see chap. 12, n. 34).

18 Paul was quite regularly thought to be the chief author who applied many of these Hellenistic and gnostic ideas to various Christian doctrines. One of the works that developed this theme most often is Bultmann’s Theology of the New Testament, 1:121, 125–33, 201, 298–306 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

19 Several examples of critiques of these ideas, emerging from different perspectives, include: Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 26–34, 157–58, 171–73 (see chap. 5, n. 19); Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 367–78 (chap. 4, n. 16); Hurtado, “New Testament Christology,” 306–17 (see chap. 10, n. 15); Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 24, 199 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Hurtado, How on Earth, 16–20, 24, cf. 37, 47–48 (see chap. 9, n. 32); Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” particularly 11–13, 15–18, 35–36 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Even Bultmann himself in 1954 hinted at critiques of his former professor Wilhelm Bousset, who was the most influential of the older German liberals in the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, implying some key defects in Bousset Bultmann’s “Introductory Word to the Fifth Edition” of Bousset’s seminal work on these subjects, Kyrios Christos, 8–9 (see chap. 10, n. 5).

20 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 166–68 (chap. 6, n. 173).

21 Ehrman, 190. Allison also agrees with Ehrman as well in End of the Ages, 166 (see chap. 13, n. 34), as does Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 95 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

22 It should be noted that this is yet another example of a very embarrassing situation for these followers, not to mention possibly raising further questions if not disgust toward these male followers for their abandonment of Jesus when they heard the gospel story recounted.

23 To be sure, repeating these Gospel resurrection scenes in the straightforward manner above does raise various questions which are treated elsewhere in this study. But these are not the issues being treated here. It is simply being pointed out that these texts themselves report items that could have provided male testimony at the tomb, but that was never done, at least at the outset. Again, we are back to the supposition that all four Gospels tell the story the way they do, with the women being the ones who went first to the tomb, precisely because it was the best way to make sense of these reports—that is just the way it happened.

24 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167–68.

25 Even though Luke has Peter or other men (depending on the variant reading in verse 12) going to the tomb to check the female testimony (24:12, 24), and while John has Peter and John doing the same thing (20:3–9), rather than showcasing the male testimony as the key, the point was that the men “found it just as the women had said” (Luke 24:24, NIV). Further, though Peter and John ran to the tomb in the Fourth Gospel and found it empty, it was still Mary Magdalene who then saw and talked first with the risen Jesus after the men had left the tomb (20:14–18). These last two emphases further elevate the importance of the phenomenon of the female testimony and of the last (according to human eyes) being first. But even if the women did discover the empty tomb, the Gospel authors could have made the disciples the first ones to see the risen Jesus. But that also was not the case!

26 Some readers may wonder about citing and building on these Gospel texts when addressing skeptics such as Ehrman. It should be noted very carefully that the response here is specifically to the same texts that Ehrman himself raises and discusses, usually in a straightforward manner. Further, as with Ehrman, it is not being argued on the basis of these texts alone that they are accurate. The assertions being made are from a different angle of simply asking why the Gospel authors told their stories this way and inquiring if these accounts support Ehrman’s attempt to argue that the story of the women witnesses to the empty tomb likely could have been invented. It seems clear, on a number of fronts, that Ehrman’s thesis here is not the best option.

27 Examples can be found in Mark 6:7–13 (esp. v. 12); Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:45–49; John 20:21–23, 31. Beginning with Acts 1:8, 22, virtually that entire book concerns the early preaching and the spread of the Christian faith. It is obvious that this mindset continues throughout the Epistles as well.

28 Though far from exhaustive, a list of several dozen critical scholars (chiefly since 1975, including strong skeptics) who favor the female testimony, usually firmly but occasionally somewhat less so, as the very best or at least a strong reason to recognize the historicity of the empty tomb, would include the following: Dale Allison refers to the women’s testimony as “the most popular argument for the historicity of the empty tomb in recent decades.” See Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 154–65, quotation on 154, cf. also 117–19, 128–36, 154–64 (see chap. 2, n. 15); likewise, Allison, End of the Ages, 166. Another influential study is Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), particularly 45–50; see also Kremer, “Zur Diskussion über ‘das leere Grab,’” in Resurrexit: Actes du symposium international sur la résurrection de Jésus, ed. E. Dhanis (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1974), 137–59; Birger Gerhardsson, “Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection according to Paul: 1 Cor. 15:1–11,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 77; Raymond E. Brown, A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 70; Derrett, Anastasis, 60–67, 102–5 (see chap. 9, n. 155). In his earlier volume, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1970), 41, Geza Vermes apparently supports the historicity of the empty tomb, though in his much later work The Resurrection, he often seems unclear on his stance, though he still holds that in spite of the weakness of female testimony, the empty tomb teaching is quite early and presents some strengths; Resurrection, 111–12, 121–23, 141–42 (see chap. 5, n. 4). One of the strongest defenses of the female testimony was written by Edward Lynn Bode, The First Easter Morning: The Gospel Accounts of the Women’s Visit to the Tomb of Jesus (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 832–34, 843 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 65 (chap. 10, n. 59); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 48–51, 129–32 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Lidija Novakovic, “Narratives about the Discovery of the Empty Tomb,” in Resurrection: Guides for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 77–102; Hurtado, Mark, 279–86 (see chap. 13, n. 1); cf. Hurtado, How on Earth, 158–59; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 607–8 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Christopher Bryan, The Resurrection of the Messiah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 160, 166–68; Grant, Jesus, 176, plus nn. 6, 232 (chap. 1, n. 24); Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:75–79, on the embarrassing place of the women at key times (see chap. 1, n. 27); Perkins, Resurrection, 94 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 40, who adds, “Nor would the presence of women as witnesses have been likely in a story that was totally fabricated.” Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, chiefly 45 (see chap. 11, n. 29); Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 46–48, 55 (see chap. 13, n. 41); Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha?, 50–51 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Wilckens, Resurrection, 116–17 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Jean-Marie Guillaume, Luc interprète des anciennes traditions sur la résurrection de Jésus (Paris: Gabalda, 1979), 269, stating that “ancienne que la tradition pre-synoptique servant de toile de fond a la pericope des femmes au tombeau,” with Guillaume also stating, “La pericope des femmes au tombeau s’appuie, quant a elle, sur une tradition pre-synoptique qui aurait servi de base au texte de Marc et que nous avons pour cela qualifie de ‘pre-marcienne’” (270); Craig A. Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right,” in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. Michael F. Bird (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 90; Evans, “Mark’s Use of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8 (1978): 53; Reginald H. Fuller thinks he can “recover an original nucleus, a report of Mary Magdalene (and perhaps other women).” For Fuller, this is “the earliest recoverable tradition.” Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102–3 (see chap. 11, n. 46). Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 349–55 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 324–29, esp. 324–25 (see chap. 8, n. 70); Donald A. Hagner thinks this is “exceptionally strong evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb itself.” See Hagner, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 109–10; R. T. France, Gospel of Mark, 665, 670–83 (see chap. 10, n. 87); C. Stephen Evans, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 353–54; McGrew and McGrew, “Argument from Miracles,” 620–21 (see chap. 12, n. 48); Sarah Coakley, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection Response,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 189; Pinchas Lapide asserts, perhaps surprisingly, that “in a purely fictional narrative one would have avoided making women the crown witnesses of the resurrection since they were considered in rabbinic Judaism as incapable of giving valid testimony (compare Luke 24:11).” See Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 95. But compare also Lapide’s puzzling comments on 128. A. N. Wilson, Jesus (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992), 241, states that “no first-century Jew, wishing to invent a good case . . . would have chosen to concoct female false witnesses . . . their testimony counted for absolutely nothing.” C. E. B. Cranfield writes, “The striking prominence of women in the Gospel Easter narratives, given their position and lack of ability to testify in court, would seem to indicate the presence of a high regard for historical truthfulness. That such traditions could be inventions of the community seems inconceivable . . . liable to attract ridicule.” Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 168–70. For several comments regarding the likelihood that legendary material would have attributed the discovery of the empty tomb to men, as well as additional similar thoughts, see O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126 (see excursus 1, n. 86); Gerald O’Collins, Jesus Risen: An Historical, Fundamental and Systematic Examination of Christ’s Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1987), 126. Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Some Current Questions,” America 153 (1985): 425; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 29, 42–43, 99 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Gerald O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Some Contemporary Issues (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 22–23. On the negative status of women in the ancient world, see O’Collins and Kendall, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness,” 631, concerning the positive evidence for Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. O’Collins and Kendall note that she is mentioned in five of six resurrection narratives in the Gospels and when she is mentioned, it is always first, 633–34, 644–46; M. M. W. Waterman, The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles (Los Angeles: Agathos, 2006), 461. Donald Goergen reports that the appearance to the women is very early and from the Jerusalem area, hence “not the creation of the evangelists.” Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 140–41, 150–51 (see excursus 1, n. 19). Walter Wink, review of The Cross That Spoke by John Dominic Crossan, in The Christian Century 105 (1988): 1159–60, comments that this ancient writing is stunning “when that society accorded women no status as witnesses whatsoever.” Other scholarly sources speaking on behalf of the female witnesses for the empty tomb include Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 58 (see excursus 2, n. 98); Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 2:192; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Davis, Risen Indeed, 73, also 72–75 (see chap. 1, n. 16); Paul Barnett, Peter Jenson, and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality (Sydney: Aquila, 1994), 12–13, esp. the essay by Peterson; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 131; Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:356 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God? Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1995), 275, 277–78; John Frederick Jansen, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 41–44; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 140–41, 167, 170–73 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Jürgen Moltmann, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 215, 218, 243; Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 105 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 122 (see chap. 1, n. 43); cf. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 276; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Williams, Resurrection, 105-7 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” 158 (see excursus 2, n. 123); John Macquarrie, “The Keystone to the Christian Faith,” and Eric Mascall, “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” both chapters in “If Christ Be Not Risen”: Essays in Resurrection and Survival, ed. John Greenhalgh and Elizabeth Russell (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1986), 20–21, and 60–62 respectively; Donald G. Dawe, Jesus: The Death and Resurrection of God (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 105; John M. G. Barclay, “The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 22; John Muddiman, “I Believe in the Resurrection of the Body,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 131–32; Judith Lieu, “The Women’s Resurrection Testimony,” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, 35, cf. 41–42; Stanley, “To Know Him,” 31 (see excursus 2, n. 19); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 137, 141–42 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Harris, Raised Immortal, 39 (see chap. 8, n. 17); David Gooding, According to Luke: The Third Gospel’s Ordered Historical Narrative (Coleraine: Myrtlefield, 2013), 370–71; Robert Gundry, “Trimming the Debate,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 110; Craig L. Blomberg, “The Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith: Harmony or Conflict?,” in Copan and Tacelli, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?, 101; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 26; Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 264–65; Robert Geis, Life of Christ (Lanham, MD: College Press of America, 2013), 313; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 200, 216–17 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Kevin Kroitor, “The Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” Eleutheria 5 (2021): 31–43. See the brief summary in Gary R. Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 23–24, 45, particularly endnotes 126–30 (see chap. 2, n. 33).

29 Immediately afterwards, Dunn adds, “As we shall see later, the indications are strong that the Jesus movement ‘took off’ within Jerusalem within a short time after Jesus’ death.” See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

30 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127–28 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

31 Davis, Risen Indeed, 78–80.

32 Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” 53.

33 See Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie und Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): esp. 326–27; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 130; Pannenberg, “Historicity of the Resurrection,” 262 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:357; Pannenberg, “History and the Reality of the Resurrection,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 69, where he argues that the apostolic preaching in Jerusalem would be inexplicable otherwise, since the message could be disproven without much problem. As German theologian Jacob Kremer states, “the tomb of Jesus was known” (Habermas translation), and no one pointed to Jesus’s body in the Jerusalem tomb; see Kremer, Die Osterevangelien, 50. Also Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 320; Allison, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Rational Apologetics,” Philosophia Christi 10 (2008): 323–24; cf. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:86–87, 89–91 (see chap. 4, n. 47); Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 456, 473, 496–97 (see chap. 13, n. 35); Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 222; Hengel, Atonement, 38–39 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836–37; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, chap. 22, for example (see chap. 10, n. 17); Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 114–15, 266–68; Hurtado, How on Earth, 4, 30, 36, 41–42; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, cf. 649–56; Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 163–66, 180–86 (see chap. 7, n. 18). Even John Shelby Spong asserts, “There is no doubt that Jerusalem is the city in which Christianity was born.” Thus, if some hoax occurred, “Jerusalem would have offered the best opportunity. Yet none of these things happened.” Spong The Easter Moment (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 88. James G. Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility of the Empty Tomb Story and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Response to N. T. Wright,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 174–75; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, cf. 226–27; C. Stephen Evans, Historical Christ, 352–54; McGrew and McGrew, “Argument from Miracles,” primarily 620–22; Michael F. Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin? A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence (London: SPCK, 2008), 42; Phillip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 79; Lorenzen refers to the Jerusalem location for the early apostolic preaching as the “most persuasive in favor of the historical reliability of the empty tomb traditions” as long as a few questions can be answered. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171–72. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 228; Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144 (see chap. 2, n. 15), though he does not accept the historicity of the empty tomb; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 43; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, where three challenges to this option are addressed on 126–27. William Lane Craig makes the relevant comment “Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the tomb and one in the risen life.” Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59. See also Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 59, also 56–57; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 2:193; Craig, “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?,” in Jesus under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 151–52; Macquarrie, “Keystone to the Christian Faith,” particularly 18–24; Mascall, “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” esp. 60–66. Historian Paul Maier asserts that the disciples’ messages delivered soon afterwards in Jerusalem would be “the very last place it could have started if Jesus’ tomb had remained occupied.” See Maier, “The Empty Tomb as History,” 5 (see chap. 1, n. 40); also, Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 203 (see chap. 1, n. 24). Stephen Davis proclaims that “early Christian proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem would have been psychologically and apologetically impossible without safe evidence of an empty tomb.” See Davis, Risen Indeed, 182–83. Further, Davis states that “the apostles’ claims would have been subject to massive falsification by the simple presentation of a body” (80). Many additional scholars who generally agree with these thoughts include Charles C. Anderson, The Historical Jesus: The Continuing Quest (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 167–69; Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 111 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Dawe, Jesus, 107; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Themelios 5 (1979): 264; James I. Packer, “Response to the Debate,” in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 149; Anderson, Christianity and World Religions, 125 (see chap. 8, n. 14). Cranfield thinks that “the chances of finding the body, if the claim that Jesus was risen was not true, must surely at that early date have been quite good.” See Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170. Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” reminds readers that a body was never produced on 158; Gooding, According to Luke, 376–77; Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 104, 106 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Neville Clark, Interpreting the Resurrection (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), cf. the contrast on 89–91.

34 Michael Martin, “Reply to Davis,” Philo 2 (1999): 67. New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann makes the same charge in his “Closing Response,” 153 (see excursus 2, n. 121).

35 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 318.

36 For some of the details, see Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 70–71, especially 287n32 for one of these medical statements (see chap. 4, n. 2). Another medical examiner independently provided the same details.

37 Besides Watson’s thoughts above, Ehrman notes this thought in passing in How Jesus Became God, 165. Other similar complaints are found in D. Zeller, “Der Ostermorgen im 4. Evangelium [Joh 20,1–18],” in Auferstehung Jesu—Auferstehung der Christen: Deutungen des Osterglaubens, ed. Ingo Broer et al., (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 145–61; John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1998), 560, 562; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 259, 271 (see chap. 5, n. 7); Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 208–13; Lindars, “The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993), 128, 131; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 172. Similar ideas are found in Werner Georg Kümmel, The Theology of the New Testament: According to Its Major Witnesses Jesus—Paul—John, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 102.

38 Ehrman dates this text very soon after the crucifixion; see How Jesus Became God, 154–55, 225–26; cf. 240.

39 We cannot in the space of this chapter address in much detail the cognate criticism by John Dominic Crossan and a few others that Jesus’s body was actually either left on the cross after his death to be ravaged by wild beasts, or buried in a common pit with the location being forgotten very quickly and dogs potentially digging it up and eating it. Examples are contained in Crossan’s volumes, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 152–58 (see chap. 6, n. 44); and, Historical Jesus, particularly 394 (see chap. 6, n. 44). This view has been critiqued often, including in the chapter on Jesus’a burial in this volume. Even Dale Allison quips, “Jesus was ‘buried,’ etaphē. . . . The verb thaptō means ‘bury’ and would hardly be used of the unceremonious dumping of a criminal into an unmarked trench as dog food: that was not burial but its denial.” Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 353 (see chap. 1, n. 30). I have responded briefly to Crossan’s proposals with nine contrary considerations; see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 126–29 (see chap. 3, n. 48). For another excellent, detailed response to Ehrman’s own skeptical conclusion as to where Jesus’s body was buried, as found in Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 151–64, see Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 71–93.

40 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 26 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

41 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197.

42 Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, 50; Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (London: Routledge, 2020), 132; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 117–19; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 428–29; Davis, Risen Indeed, 69, 78–79; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus, ”2:173–200, esp. 182; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 264; Harris, Raised Immortal, 38; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 216–17; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 35.

43 Such would include Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 135–36; also Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, 51–53 (see chap. 5, n. 39); Michael Goulder, “Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise from the Dead?,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 64–65; Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Empty Tomb in the Gospel of Mark,” in Hermes and Athens: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology, ed. Eleonore Stump and Thomas Flint (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 129–30; A. Collins, “Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–48, esp. 145–47 (see excursus 2, n. 24); Funk, Honest to Jesus, 221; Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988), 135. Even though the Jesus Seminar, after discussion, rejected the empty tomb as probably being Mark’s creation, they still concluded that at a minimum Mary Magdalene “had at least one visionary religious experience of Jesus after his death.” Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454, also 478–79 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

44 Most of these brief fragments are located in Acts 1–5, 10, and 13, as noted below.

45 As treated elsewhere in this chapter, Ehrman is an example of a scholar who specifically dates Acts 2:36 and 13:32–33 among other very early passages of this nature; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 225–29. Cf. Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 102.

46 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1492–524 (see chap. 4, n. 40).

47 Daniel A. Smith argues that the empty tomb story in Mark resulted from the author taking over an earlier, preexisting tradition that was treated rather ambivalently, though seldom in an apologetic sense. See Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 10; Christopher Bryan, “Review Article: Once More—That Empty Tomb!,” Sewanee Theological Review, 53 (2010): 443.

48 Of the many scholars who hold this or a similar position, see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 321; Brown, New Testament Christology, 164 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48–49 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the New Testament,” The Month 20 (1987): 405; Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), especially chap. 13; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 400–437; Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 106, 146–47; Davis, Risen Indeed, 76; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 57; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 129–30 (see excursus 1, n. 94); Caird, (compiled and edited by L. D. Hurst), New Testament Theology, 239–40, 267–71 (see chap. 11, n. 17); Wenham, Paul, 369 (see excursus 2, n. 55); Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 36–40; cf. Dunn’s conclusion in “How Are the Dead Raised? With What Body Do They Come? Reflections on 1 Corinthians 15,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 45 (2002): 17–18; D. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 31–33.

49 This possibility is even granted by Crossan in Birth of Christianity, 550, and by Marcus Borg in Borg and N. T. Wright, Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, 132 (see excursus 1, n. 60). John Frederick Jansen also grants this as a possibility (41), but whatever the reason, Jansen states, “Today there is a growing consensus in New Testament scholarship that the tradition of the empty grave is early tradition, not a late addition.” Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 41–44.

50 Lüdemann, “Closing Response,” 43–45, 153; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 259; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 125, 131; Elliott, “First Easter,” 215 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

51 As Ehrman even agrees in How Jesus Became God, esp. 133, 137, 176–78, 182–83, 186.

52 In many respects, Cook’s intricate studies bear some major resemblances to Wright’s noteworthy volume, The Resurrection of the Son of God, referred to multiple times throughout this study. The conclusions of these two texts converge at many points.

53 John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, and Apotheosis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), esp. Cook’s conclusions on pages 54, 618–19, 623.

54 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 233–34. Doré juxtaposes these two passages in the context of the initial resurrection kerygma, in conjunction with Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem in Gal 1:18. Doré, “La résurrection,” esp. 291 (see chap. 10, n. 19).

55 Just a few of the many scholars who accept the presence of early traditions behind at least some of these Acts sermons include Lüdemann, Early Christianity (see chap. 10, n. 70), where a few of these traditions are mentioned on pages 17, 29–31, 49, 77, 106–16, 239–40; some hints are found in Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 233–34; cf. Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 129–30, including n. 74; Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteran Kirche 72 (1981): 2; also Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 361 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Hengel, Atonement, 38–39; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–31 (see chap. 2, n. 22); Perkins, Resurrection, 90, 228–31; Brown, New Testament Christology, 112–13, 164; Elliott, “First Easter,” 215; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 322; Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 64–65; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 40–42; Gourges, A la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et Actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans in Noveau Testament (Paris:J. Gabalda et Cie Editeurs, 1978), esp. 169–78; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 44–45; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 141 (see excursus 1, n. 93); F. X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus: Mystère de Salut, 10th ed. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1976), 22.

56 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 109–13, 140–41, 172, 261–62; cf. 157–58, 170; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 154–55, 216–18, 225–30.

57 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 225–26, 240.

58 Actually, in the later of his two chief volumes used here, Ehrman acknowledges that he has changed his view on this subject from his previous position of there being strong data that favors an empty tomb, while now preferring the view “that we do not know, and cannot know, what actually happened to Jesus’ body.” Mentioning Crossan’s position on Jesus’s body being buried in a common grave and possibly being eaten by dogs, Ehrman notes that he thought this approach went a bit too far. Yet, he still points out that this sort of notion is “what normally happened to a criminal’s body” after crucifixion; see Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 157, 164–69, 184. Thus, this provides an example of how holding to a very early date for the Acts sermon traditions, even in the case where at least one of them in particular affirms Jesus was buried in a tomb and did not experience bodily corruption, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of an empty tomb! Many may consider this to be an unwarranted sifting of the available data, walking a fine line while extracting just the needed data and no more. Ehrman’s overall view is considered often elsewhere in this study, but for now it will only be noted that it is rather amazing that his current stance provides precisely what he needs from the early date of the preliterary traditions such as those in Acts 13 to draw his chief Christological conclusions here, while ignoring almost all of the additional, inclusive material that many scholars often think follows quite naturally from admissions such as Ehrman’s. For example, a number of the scholarly views expressed in the footnotes immediately above support positions that disagree with Ehrman on the broader topic. Of course, Ehrman could be the correct interpreter here. However, where Ehrman starts and stops his acceptance of the pre-Acts text is especially instructive for those familiar with the scholarly terrain. For instance, Ehrman emphasizes the import of Acts 13:28–29, which makes his crucial theological point, only to assert both that Paul is not the author, as identified, and that the remainder of this portion of text that specifically involves the burial tomb was most likely invented; see How Jesus Became God, 154–55. The entire sequence is reminiscent of Ehrman’s own chiding of “mythicists” for what he repeatedly refers to as “a ‘scholarship of convenience’(!)” or something similar. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, quotation on 133; similarly 55, 59, 118, 191, 253. To be sure, Ehrman is not discussing the belief in textual interpolations at this juncture, where he is referring to texts that are ignored or simply excised. But with Acts 13 and in other places, he seems to be making somewhat similar moves, reasoning in ways that many scholars would consider to be less likely to make a different point in keeping with one’s theological preferences. This sort of apparent picking and choosing is especially noticeable in Ehrman’s discussion on 152–56, 225–26, 240. These stances are disappointing precisely because Ehrman is very often a straightforward and sensible interpreter, hence the surprise here.

59 This chapter on the historicity of the empty tomb makes no pretense to solving the textual issues involved at this point.

60 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1523–24. Some other scholars here include Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 2:519–20; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 118–19, for a tight summary, esp. in n. 12; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167; also Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 104 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Perkins, Resurrection, 115–116; Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” 51–54; Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 2:190–91; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127; Guillaume, Luc interprète, part 1; cf. Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102 and cf. Frans Neirynck, “Marc 16,1–8: Tradition et Redaction,” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980): 56–88; D. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb, 9, 76, 97, 206n76, where Smith provides a brief list of other scholars in agreement; Bryan, “Review Article: Once More—That Empty Tomb!,” 443–44.

61 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 1522.

62 Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 118n12.

63 See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 32–479, especially xix, 31, 71, 82–83, 201–6, 273, 314, 710.

64 Wright, 321.

65 An example is David J. Bryan, “The Jewish Background to The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): 160, 167–69 in particular. Still, Bryan uses phrases such as “I have quibbled” (162) and “similar caveats” (163), yet frequently compliments Wright’s understanding, as well (160, 162, 166). Interestingly for our immediate purposes here, Bryan seems to agree with Wright’s conclusions on terms like anastasis and egeirō with the words: “This it seems to me is persuasive” (160). Nonetheless, Bryan’s strongest complaint regards Wright’s being so convinced that “no one expected anyone to rise ahead of the rest of the righteous” Jews (167–69). N. T. Wright responds to Bryan’s critique: “Resurrecting Old Arguments: Responding to Four Essays,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3 (2005): specifically 212–16.

66 Later chapters in volume 4 of this study pursue this issue in greater detail, for both Paul and other New Testament authors as pertaining to Jesus’s resurrection as well as that of believers.

67 For just a few of these other scholars (and despite some differences), see the following seminal studies: Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, esp. chap. 13, “The Sōma in Death and Resurrection”; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, especially 400–437; Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 131–36; Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, and Apotheosis, 13–55, 570–624; Peters, Russell, and Welker, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (see chap. 1, n. 3); Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 53; the essays by Davis (126–47) and Alston (148–83) in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, The Resurrection; Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 117–48, 325–47 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Fitzmyer, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 409; Margaret Pamment, “Raised a Spiritual Body: Bodily Resurrection according to Paul,” New Blackfriars 66 (1985): 380–81, 386. Cf. the intriguing comments by Pannenberg in his “Response to the Debate,” 130.

68 Even Lüdemann agrees in “Closing Response,” 151 (see excursus 2, n. 121). While details often differ, similar positions have been taken by Crossan, see especially his “Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” Neotestamentica 37 (2003): 29–57 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, particularly 6–10, 173, 296, 341–45 (see chap. 10, n. 66); Crossan, “Appendix: Bodily-Resurrection Faith,” 171–86 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 132–33, 137, 168–69, 176–78, 185, 257–58; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 132–33, 137, 168–69, 176–78, 181, 185, cf. 206–10. In spite of his agnosticism, James Crossley also allows for Paul’s view of bodily appearances in “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 174. Cf. also as an aside the view of Allison, who in spite of his own criticism and serious questions still accepts the resurrection appearances of Jesus: “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death”; Resurrecting Jesus, 346. Allison also agrees that the New Testament teaching is that of bodily appearances of Jesus on 225–27, 265–66, 317, 324–25. Further ideas on Jewish views of bodily resurrection as reflecting the position held by Paul in his dispute with the Corinthians are contained in Gerhard Barth, “Zur Frage nach der in 1 Korinther 15 bekämpften Auferstehungsleugnung,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1992): 187–201.

69 Translation from James, Apocryphal New Testament (see chap. 9, n. 101). James thought that the Gospel of Peter should not be dated earlier than AD 150, though Ehrman places its date slightly earlier before 130 AD. See Ehrman, New Testament, 44 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

70 Although leaving it an open question on evidential grounds alone, William Lane Craig has produced a number of very thoughtful reasons in favor of this pericope. See Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 273–81 (see chap. 9, n. 51).

71 The examples include Watson, review of Jesus Risen by O’Collins, 144–45; Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34n17; Sarah Coakley, “Is the Resurrection a ‘Historical’ Event? Some Muddles and Mysteries,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 88. It should be noted here that Coakley still thinks women were probably the first witnesses to the resurrection appearances, as reflected in the empty tomb accounts. Her “Response to William P. Alston,” is included in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 189.

72 In spite of the charge from some skeptics like Ehrman in How Jesus Became God, 154–55, 225, that perhaps the earliest reference to Jesus’s burial was that the Jewish leaders themselves buried his dead body. If so, then what did they think became of it? Ehrman’s argument here will be treated elsewhere in detail.

73 Even skeptics such as Elliott, “First Easter,” 218, and Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), esp. 66, also 54–55, 61, acknowledge the force of this argument from the lack of response from the religious leaders. Kremer points out that Jesus’s opponents did not directly dispute his resurrection or his appearances; see Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, 50. Also in agreement are other researchers such as Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47; Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 126–31; Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 101; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 222; Pheme Perkins, “‘I Have Seen the Lord’ (John 20:18): Women Witnesses to the Resurrection” Interpretation 46, no. 1 (1992): 35; Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 323; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 38–40, 43.

74 For the many details, see especially Frans Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 161–87; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 102–3; Perkins, “Women Witnesses to the Resurrection,” 36, 40; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324; Guillaume, Luc interprète, part 1. Cf. the work of Finnish scholar Matti Kankaanniemi, Guards of the Tomb, with a couple of key passages noted below (see chap. 9, n. 51).

75 See especially Davis, Risen Indeed, 71, 82; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 58.

76 On the critical value of Aramaic terms as an indicator of authenticity, along with a couple of cautions and responses, see Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 163–66 (see chap. 2, n. 35).

77 The longer and later ending in Mark 16:12 (sometimes termed “pseudo-Mark”) does not mention the names of either of these two disciples. This is remarkable, especially since the lateness of the text would seem to allow additional time to add some names, particularly in the case of influential reports like that of a resurrection appearance, which could be very helpful for the provenance of the account.

78 Some similar thoughts are included in the synopsis by Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 140–41, 170–73; cf. Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 130.

79 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 40, 47, 49, 50–51, 130.

80 It should be noted that this is not a reference to the disputed thesis regarding any notion of “changing the Sabbath,” which does not appear to be the case anyway. Rather, it is more simply asking the reason for Sunday being the chief celebration day in the early church. See Williams, Resurrection, 105; Harris, Raised Immortal, 39–40.

81 Among the many strong research sources here, see especially Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 48–51; see also Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 179–83, 197.

82 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 97; also 56, 171, 290–91; cf. 140–41; Ehrman, New Testament, 43–44, and Did Jesus Exist? both place Ehrman’s date for John’s Gospel at AD 90–95.

83 Just a few of the examples in Ehrman include How Jesus Became God, 138–39; and Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 130–32.

84 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 93–94, and Did Jesus Exist?, 74–75, 156, 259–63, on ascertaining historical facts in the Gospels.

85 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 78 (where three later noncanonical Gospels are also included), cf. 290–91. Historian Paul Barnett identifies Galatians as the earliest “documentary reference to Jesus” and states that “in terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity with parallel.” See Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, cf. 10 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

86 Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 147 (see chap. 11, n. 113); Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67; Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 47; Perkins, Resurrection, 94; Harris, Raised Immortal, 40; Kroitor, “Veracity of the Empty Tomb Tradition,” 42–43; Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 42; cf. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127.

87 Perkins, Resurrection, 94; cf. Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 59.

88 Even Thomas Sheehan acknowledges this in “Two Easter Legends,” Philosophy and Theology 1 (1989): 45; also Brown, New Testament Christology, 165; Perkins, “Women Witnesses to the Resurrection,” 41; Perkins, Resurrection, 123; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 99; Davis, Risen Indeed, 72; Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 171, 180; Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 43.

89 Davis, Risen Indeed, 75; also Margaret E. Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” The Thomist 43 (1979): 200.

90 Kankaanniemi, The Guards of the Tomb, esp. 255–56 and 257–62 for a summary of these reasons.

91 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:358; Perkins, Resurrection, 94; Hebblethwaite, “Resurrection and the Incarnation,” 158.

92 Davis, Risen Indeed, 63–78.

93 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202.

94 Older historical investigations include Franz Cumont, “Un rescrit impérial sur la violation de sèpulture,” in Revue historique 163 (1930): 241–66; F. de Zulueta, “Violation of Sepulture in Palestine,” Journal of Roman Studies 22, no. 2 (1932): 184–97. For the full text, additional references, and comments, see Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202–3. Also mentioning this rather intriguing archaeological find are scholars such as Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 101; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 316, 323; and Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 75, 708–9.

95 Bruce Bower, “The Nazareth Inscription’s Origins May Refute Ties to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Science News, March 20, 2020. Cf. the more technical studies: Harper et al., “Establishing the Provenance of the Nazareth Inscription” (see chap. 6, n. 168); Stander, “Nazareth Inscription Revisited,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 15 (2004), 254–66.

96 One prominent researcher clarifies even the description of Jewish tombs, such as the one described as Joseph’s in the Gospel narratives: Mark Goodacre, “How Empty Was the Tomb?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (2021): 134–48, particularly 134–36, 143–46.

97 Kremer, Die Osterevangelien, 48–50 (Habermas translation).

98 Kremer, 49–50 (Habermas translation).

99 As quoted by Craig (from a personal letter) in Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 374n29.

100 O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 123.

101 Waterman, Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark, 192–93.

102 Habermas, “Resurrection Research,” 141 (see chap. 4, n. 4). In an essay published a year later in the journal section “Theological Update,” after a little further research, these positive numbers were adjusted slightly downward to 70–75 percent. See Habermas, “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 292 (see chap. 4, n. 4).

103 As summarized by Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 461n606.

104 While attempting to be both thorough and fair, it needs to be emphasized that these figures are from my own study of about fifty years concerning scholars who mostly published relevant works from 1975 to date. No claim is being made to this being an exhaustive survey. Nor are many scholars counted who published from much before 1975. The requirements from the outset of this study must be recalled, namely, that the focus would be placed only on scholars who have terminal degrees, or those having equivalent degrees in one of the several relevant fields, rather than just anyone who is writing on this subject, especially in privately published works. A problem quickly emerges among many Jesus mythicists who would naturally prefer to have their views taken seriously, even though so many have neither of these academic requirements that were stated from the outset, but who deem that their simply stated view should be sufficient to count. One well-known mythicist wrote to explain that a great many of his colleagues should be included in my list, but perhaps even most of these suggested writers had neither of the requirements above.

Indicating that I am neither alone nor slanting the playing field in these convictions, atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman treats this subject at length, requiring very similar demarcations when writing on the historical Jesus, while noting very frequently that very few mythicists possess the necessary credentials. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 2, 17, 167, 194–97, 268. In fact, he specifically calls out, sometimes by name, various well-known mythicists who simply do not qualify as scholars. Ehrman basically only includes a couple of the researchers in his accredited list (17–25, for example).

105 Duplicate names were of course only counted once when they were mentioned in the lists of scholars above provided by Kremer and O’Collins, along with a few more mentioned by Craig in Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 374n29.

106 Concerning those who reject this event, Peter Kirby includes a list of twenty-eight writers in “The Case against the Empty Tomb,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 256–57n1. Licona also adds two lists of those who object in Resurrection of Jesus, 462nn607–8. I have compiled a longer list of dozens of more names. Duplicate scholars here were also deleted.

107 Grant, Jesus, 176 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

108 Wand, Christianity, 93–94 (see chap. 1, n. 22). For other insightful comments on historical research, see 51–52, 84, 108.

109 Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 68. We might add Thomas Torrance here, for whom the empty tomb has “empirical correlates in space and time” that are “open to testing.” See Torrance’s volume, Space, Time, and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 189–90.

110 Such as Loke’s limiting the options to eleven and only eleven in “The Resurrection of the Son of God: A Reduction of the Naturalistic Alternatives,” Journal of Theological Studies 60, no. 2 (October 2009): 579–83, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flp093.

111 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 832.

112 Dunn, 840.

113 While I never considered the empty tomb to be one of the minimal facts, its evidential basis fits nicely among those facts. The second criterion of the amount of scholarly support is where the empty tomb lags behind somewhat, even though that category has grown considerably in recent decades. As we have said repeatedly, this second criterion does not determine the facticity of these events anyway. Rather, scholarly views only indicate the methodological lay of the land. Nonetheless, the empty tomb remains outside the demarcation of the minimal facts.

16

Jesus’s Burial

What facts exist that help us to determine what happened to Jesus’s body after his death? To be sure, if Jesus died by crucifixion, then something necessarily happened to his body. Sometimes options are aired, like Jesus’s corpse being eaten by birds and wild animals as it hung on the cross in the aftermath of his crucifixion, or its being flung into the community garbage dump in Jerusalem. Normally, dead bodies in the Jerusalem area would most likely be placed either in a cave utilized expressly for burial or placed in a rectangular dirt trench in the ground, which was the most common scenario in Israel at that time. However, a victim of capital punishment was not a normal, everyday resident. So our chief question in this chapter concerns whether Jesus was buried as portrayed in the Gospel accounts or by some other means.

Though Jesus’s burial is not one of the events from our shorter list of minimal facts,1 this occurrence still includes several intriguing features and purposes that fill out the overall picture rather nicely, as narrated in the Gospel texts. Several interesting features are involved in these accounts.2 In all four Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea seeks permission of Pilate to obtain the deceased body of Jesus, who grants the request.3 In Mark, Pilate checks first with the centurion,4 who affirms that Jesus has already died (15:44–45). In John, Nicodemus also assists Joseph by supplying the spices (19:39). In the Synoptic Gospels, several women are also present at the tomb.5

Some Alternate Approaches

Nineteenth-century German liberalism gave rise to a plethora of alternate hypotheses and reinterpretations as well as different and even new angles on events in Jesus’s life, especially the supernatural occurrences at the end. A century later, at the close of the twenty-first century, there have been certainly fewer such suggestions from scholars. Fewer still have been aimed at Jesus’s burial. After all, as a sort of isthmus that connected the grand events of Jesus’s death and his ensuing resurrection appearances, seemingly few scholars have focused upon the burial scenario depicted in the Gospels.

John Dominic Crossan and Other Similar Views

Somewhat reminiscent of nineteenth-century thought in more ways than one, a very few scholars in the last quarter of the century, such as John Dominic Crossan, take a rather irregular approach to the Gospel story of Jesus’s burial. Crossan surmises that, in keeping with first-century crucifixion customs, Jesus was either left on the cross after his death to be torn apart by wild beasts, or he was buried in a shallow grave where dogs would still have discovered his remains. At any rate, Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb and his body was most likely consumed by wild animals. In an essay titled “The Dogs Beneath the Cross,” Crossan asserts concerning Jesus’s dead body that “by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?”6

Both before and after Crossan, several other scholars have proposed a similar scenario that Jesus’s body was either eaten by birds and wild dogs or simply thrown into a common grave, like the garbage pit in Jerusalem, where it quickly became covered and decayed rapidly so that nothing identifiable was left. As prominent philosopher John Hick states, “In all probability Jesus’ body was thrown into a common criminals’ grave.”7 For critic John Shelby Spong, no one knew how Jesus was buried, because his followers had fled. But Jesus “probably received the typical treatment given to those so unfortunate” as to be killed as a criminal; his body was probably “placed into a common grave, and covered over.”8

Jack Kent also states succinctly that “more than likely, . . . Jesus’ body was thrown into the place of ‘the skull’ which would have been common practice at that time,” followed by another comment that he was referring to the body being placed in a common grave.9 For the members of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus’s body rotted just like all dead bodies, without identifying where it might have been placed.10 Some of the other scholars who either subscribe to or are at least open to alternate burial scenarios beyond the traditional one include Dale Allison,11 Gerd Lüdemann,12 Michael Goulder,13 Thomas Sheehan,14 Richard Carrier,15 and Keith Parsons,16 along with a few others,17 even going back to nineteenth-century German liberals and those who were influenced by them.18 Quite often, these critical comments are stated briefly in passing and are accompanied by very little detail. Several alternate hypotheses sometimes appear in a single sentence. Given the overall number of scholars who have commented on these questions, however, these are a comparatively small number of the researchers who have taken alternate views.19

Bart Ehrman

One of the latest to make a move away from his former position is atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who explains that he once accepted the historicity of the traditional burial and empty tomb.20 However, he has since changed his mind and made a number of different moves.

Ehrman may be more of an agnostic on the specific questions of Jesus’s burial than is Crossan. Ehrman does not provide any exact or explicit natural explanations of the supernatural elements of the crucifixion weekend and states that critics need not feel compelled to give such responses either. While it is true that individual hypotheses such as someone innocently moving Jesus’s body or the disciples stealing the body and then lying about their actions are unlikely, Ehrman proclaims that they are all still more likely than are any supernatural events. He also considers the empty tomb reports to be relatively late traditions. Through this new process, Ehrman certainly provides more details on his present approach than do most other skeptical scholars.21

Ehrman describes his recent shift on Jesus’s burial this way: “My view now is that we do not know, and cannot know, what actually happened to Jesus’s body.” But it was still more commonly the case that criminals were usually left to decompose or be eaten.22 In his concluding comments in the section on Jesus’s burial, Ehrman has this to say regarding the possibility that Jesus was buried traditionally, either by the Sanhedrin or by Joseph: “As a historian, I do not think we can say definitively that this tradition is false, although I think it is too much to say definitively that Jesus was eaten by dogs.” So while leaving open the traditional interpretation, Ehrman states that “there are, in fact, some very compelling reasons to doubt it. I personally doubt it.”23

Nevertheless, whatever his bottom line, Ehrman frankly seems to produce insufficient reasons for the change to his recent position. His shift in position on the empty tomb appears to subsequently have made him backtrack on the traditional burial of Jesus, both of which he had previously accepted. Ehrman provides three arguments against the traditional burial of Jesus’s body as depicted in the Gospels, which will be treated here in order. First, Ehrman states it is “hard to make historical sense of this tradition just within the context of Mark’s narrative.”24 For example, how come we do not know about Joseph of Arimathea until so late in Mark’s story?25 Second, it also appears to be difficult to work Joseph’s name into other New Testament texts. Neither Paul nor the major creed he cites in 1 Corinthians 15 mentions Joseph.26 Third, neither does Joseph fit into the passage in Acts 13:28–29, which actually seems to say that the entire Sanhedrin buried (ethēkan) Jesus.27

Overall, to count “numerous reasons” out of some closely aligned thoughts about Joseph not fitting into various New Testament situations really seems forced. Ehrman’s first objection does not appear to present a very difficult set of problems, and there are a number of responses. Initially, no major breach of proper reporting has been committed if an almost entirely unknown person’s name is omitted from a story except in relation to the very specific role where he or she played the major part, particularly when the individual arguably served no real purpose before that time. Jesus’s burial indeed takes a backseat as it is situated in the middle of the crucifixion and resurrection—the dominant overall story in Mark’s Gospel. Yet, the burial story with Joseph of Arimathea still constitutes an attention-getting scenario positioned among the world’s tallest and most scenic mountains. Joseph is named because he played a very special role due to his position among the Jewish leaders and his strengths were apropos to the task. What is the problem with that?

As for the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7, only Peter and James are mentioned by name, and for good reason: they are the major and most influential persons in the earliest Jerusalem church. For that matter, John, Andrew, Matthew and many others are missing too!28 Where would Joseph fare next to them in this exceptionally brief summary?

Lastly, it seems to be a real stretch to assert that the sermon summary attributed to Paul in Acts 13 depicts the view in verse 29, that the Jewish Sanhedrin members as a whole were the ones who buried Jesus with it all resting on the crucial referent for the plural pronoun “they” (ethēkan), as Ehrman does. Consider the following points: verses 27–29 concern the Jewish leaders, while the verses immediately following, from 13:30 onward, concern Jesus’s followers. To start with, commenting on the text here, Evans calls Ehrman’s moves “vague.”29 For example, Ehrman asks if referring to the Sanhedrin in Acts 13:29 could possibly even constitute the earliest tradition that we possess on this subject. But without any evidence per se, Ehrman proceeds on the very next page and jumps to the conclusion: “So that is the oldest tradition we have.”30 He just drew an unwarranted conclusion on an important topic without the necessary factual backing.

Moreover, Ehrman agrees that Acts and Luke were written by the same author.31 As such, the same book that records the early tradition in Acts 13:28–29 also records and affirms both the better-known burial scenarios just a few verses later (13:34–37) as well as earlier includes the testimony of Acts 2:29–32. In both of these additional texts, Jesus’s body is said to have never experienced corruption, as opposed to the position that Ehrman thinks is most likely being taught, namely, that Jesus’s body was probably left to the wild creatures or thrown into a common grave to decay.32 Most incredibly, the author of Acts was likely the same author who specifically told the detailed, traditional story of Joseph of Arimathea’s burial of Jesus’s body in Luke 23:50–56. So, the author of Luke-Acts seemingly either does not hold Ehrman’s “Sanhedrin interpretation” of Acts 13:28–29 or, at the very least, does not consider this interpretation to be at odds with the general interpretation of his two books. There are other such examples in the Luke-Acts tandem as well.

Lastly, even if the text in Acts 13:28–29 does affirm a burial by the Jewish leaders, this could simply be a rather generic way to identity that one of their own members, Joseph of Arimathea, did the actual burying. In this case, the plural could well indicate that Joseph (possibly including Nicodemus) was acting on behalf of the Sanhedrin (as in Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50), or even that the use of the plural was due to having the Sanhedrin’s permission or acknowledgment to act in this manner.33 This would also appear to be the more likely way to explain the previous point about there being no problem with Luke as the author of both texts.

Ehrman’s second objection is that the bodies of deceased criminals and those considered to be criminals were regularly eaten by wild beasts and birds or thrown into common graves, whether by the Romans or by others. Ehrman knows ancient exceptions to this rule. But he thinks that Philo is usually read improperly. Ehrman cites Diodorus Siculus (Library of History, first century BC), Dio Chrysostom (Discourses, about AD 100), Octavian (in Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars, written about AD 120), and Tacitus (Ann. 6.29, also written about 120) here. In fact, Ehrman concludes the entire matter with the words, “I have not run across any contrary indications in any ancient source.”34

However, New Testament scholar and specialist on Jesus’s burial Craig A. Evans shows firmly that Ehrman’s overall diagnosis is quite incorrect at many points. Initially though, Evans agrees with Ehrman’s charge that the Romans were indeed ruthless and could often speak of leaving crucifixion victims as scavenger food. And to Ehrman’s list Evans additionally cites Horace (Ep. 1.16.48; about 25 BC), Juvenal (Sat. 14.77–78; about AD 125), the anonymous third-century Apotelesmatica (4.200), a second-century epitaph (Amyzon, cave I), Livy (History of Rome 29.9.10; 18.14), and Josephus (J.W. 5.289, 449) as simply reporting these data or supporting the leaving of victims’ dead bodies on the cross after death.35

But Evans also argues convincingly that Ehrman is seriously mistaken in this second point that the Romans virtually always denied burial to crucifixion victims. For Evans, “The evidence is more variegated than Ehrman and others have assumed.”36 For starters, the Romans granted clemency on many occasions, and Roman sources often speak in favor of clemency for the jailed or the condemned.37

Specifically for crucifixion victims, Evans argues that the very text chosen by Ehrman to illustrate his point against removal from the cross for the purposes of burial takes Philo out of context. Evans contends that Philo is actually arguing in the exact instance in question that the Roman governor of Egypt in about AD 32 was wrong to deny burial to crucifixion victims (Flacc. 83).38 Further, Evans argues that there are a number of both Roman and Jewish sources that allow burial in circumstances involving crucifixion. These Roman sources include the Digesta, a summary of Roman law, which specifically gives permission to turn over the bodies of crucifixion victims to the family members (48.24.1, 3), Josephus (Life 75), and the crucifixion victim Jehohanan, whose bones were found in Israel reburied in an ossuary after decomposition.39 Likewise, Jewish law required a proper burial even to victims of capital punishment (Deut 21:22–23; 11Q19 64:7–13a).

Ehrman’s third reason for doubting the traditional burial account of Jesus is the historical information regarding Pontius Pilate that “he was a fierce, violent, mean-spirited ruler who displayed no interest at all in showing mercy and kindness to his subjects and showed no respect for Jewish sensitivities.”40 So while the traditional burial for Jesus was a possible result, it was not the most likely outcome.

Further for Ehrman, Jewish law in general made no difference to how the Romans behaved, including the respect that the Jews had for burying the dead. Ehrman states, “The Romans who did crucify [Jesus] had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities.”41 Yet, Ehrman himself mentions a case where offensive Roman standards bearing the emperor’s image were removed (Josephus, Ant. 18.3.1).42 While this was not always the case of course, as with a second violent case Ehrman describes, the Romans did change on this occasion when they realized that they were offending the Jewish beliefs. Evans notes Josephus’s report that previous Roman governors likewise did not bring the Roman images into Jerusalem (Ant. 18.3.2–3).

Another massive consideration here is that Josephus mentions another very similar occasion when the Jews opposed the Romans in AD 66 and many were crucified. Yet even on this occasion, even after an insurrection, the crucified were still allowed to be “taken down and buried before sunset” (J. W., 4.317).43 It should be mentioned that Pilate let Barabbas go free, as well (Mark 15:6–15 and parallels).

Another factor is that Pilate also could have responded differently to Jesus due to the fact that Jesus’s answers to his questions may have actually intrigued him. We are told that Pilate was amazed at Jesus—and scared by him too.44 Or perhaps Pilate’s own wife scared him even more (Matt 27:19). Who knows? Jesus was not anything like Pilate’s normal interviewees!

At any rate, it is therefore very difficult to agree with Ehrman and conclude that Pilate never or almost never acceded to the Jews enough to show his “kinder side” and “gentler behavior” toward Jesus. Sure, Ehrman always allows himself an exit, and he does say that Jesus may have been an exception to Roman actions,45 yet he considers it to be very unlikely.46 While Ehrman knows of these cases too, Evans particularly indicates some situations here where Pilate and the Romans did make major exceptions. Then there were Jesus’s brief talks with Pilate as well. Evans’s reasons also carry much weight, especially given his specialist studies in the area of Jewish burial.

In sum, Ehrman’s overall religious stance and change of mind on facts surrounding Jesus’s burial has led to a fascinating study of Jesus’s world. However, Ehrman’s new reasons do not tip the scales in his favor. Additionally, the thirteen reasons provided below that clearly favor the traditional Jewish burial of Jesus’s body in a tomb clearly outweigh Ehrman’s efforts.

Reburial of Jesus’s Body?

One other outside-the-box suggestion might be mentioned. What if the evidence for the traditional burial view were indeed simply too strong to ignore, and, at least up to a point, it was largely correct?47 On this view, Joseph of Arimathea did indeed lead Jesus’s burial, placing the body in his own previously unoccupied tomb. But instead of the majority view that Joseph never intended to move Jesus, what if Joseph simply meant this arrangement to be a temporary resting place due to the Friday afternoon rush to get Jesus interred before the Sabbath? In this case, Joseph then reburied Jesus’s body before Sunday morning, appearing to have inadvertently left an empty tomb in his wake. But then, in all of his haste, Joseph neglected to tell any other believers or Jesus’s family members, at least initially.48

Before moving on, it should be added carefully that this scenario would in absolutely no sense constitute a “stolen body” thesis, whether by friend or foe, or a “wrong tomb” thesis of any sort, as Lowder makes quite clear himself in some detail.49 By comparison to those other views, this would have been a fairly simple and innocuous move by the tomb’s owner, in spite of the potentially momentous results.50

For starters, both Tabor and Lowder make a number of concessions, which might be taken as indicating some weaknesses in their positions. Both admit that the majority of scholars disagree with their position or even largely ignore it. Lowder thinks that this lack of acceptance even by critics is strange.51 But is the reason for this neglect simply that so few scholars care about doing good research, or that the argument for the two-burial thesis is judged to be very unlikely? If the scholarly conclusions in the above footnote are any indication, then it is quite clearly that, at least regarding the case of the Talpiot Tomb version of the double-burial thesis, scholars are not shy in expressing their conclusions that it is the poor data and reasoning processes that bother them!

Also, both of these authors admit that at least some of the naturalistic theses that traditionally oppose the burial, empty tomb, and resurrection appearance narratives in the Gospels are mistaken.52 This narrows considerably many of the critical options.

Lastly and perhaps most crucially, both authors admit that some of the key tenets that they need for the double-burial thesis are devoid of any evidence, and, presumably, they must therefore fill in the cracks or make what they probably consider to be educated guesses. Lowder comments that there is “no evidence the Jews responded to the Christian proclamation of the empty tomb by pointing to the location of the second tomb.” On the other hand, Lowder admits that there is evidence that at least some Jews retorted to the Christians by blaming the disciples with stealing Jesus’s deceased body!53 Gerd Lüdemann agrees here: “The rumour of the theft of the corpse of Jesus is certainly historical, but not the theft itself.”54 Thus, the data we have is contrary to Lowder’s hypothesis.

Tabor likewise claims there is no real evidence for the actual machinations of the second burial. But he explains this conundrum by saying that this “is unfortunately a matter about which historians can say little, given the theological nature of our sources, and their relatively late apologetic character.”55 In other words, for Lowder the traditional view taught by Matthew (with backup from Justin Martyr and Tertullian) that Jesus’s disciples stole his body has some evidence in its favor. Hence as far as we know, it was the preferred view of the Jewish authorities, while the double-burial idea has no Jewish backup or data at all and, so far as we know, it was not their preferred view.

However, when the going gets tough for Tabor, he takes refuge behind theological and apologetic tendencies in the Gospels, so he therefore chooses to move the attention away from the lack of evidence favoring his thesis to claimed Gospel problems. But for Lowder as well as for Tabor, the place where they must rely on some species of filling in the blanks precisely where the rubber meets the road for their position, is where they admit that there is no evidence for what they hold.

But carefully note that, in both cases, Tabor and Lowder still prefer the double-burial option, choosing it without evidence over the traditional burial option, which has far more data in its favor. The two arguments are not even close in terms of where the evidence lies. Thus, it sounds like worldview and even emotional preferences are being exercised here in both cases too, taking precedence over what are clearly the better reasons!

Moving beyond the concessions made by both of these authors in assembling their different versions of the double-burial hypothesis, what other weaknesses are observed in the overall discussion? Both authors actually assume and even require that a good portion of the traditional Gospel burial thesis is true, yet both of them also freely make comments that the Gospel texts are unreliable.56 So which is it? How do these seemingly contrary positions—the general unreliability of the text versus the particularly helpful portions that they wish to use here—work out?

Somewhat similarly, there are stretches in the writings of Tabor and Lowder that are riddled with “ifs”—but how sure should the reader be when the authors seem like they are picking-and-choosing as they move along, especially when the question concerns precisely the most vital points of their argument? Time and again, it sometimes seems that the critics’ internal predisposition might go something like this: when something in the Gospels is needed to help a thesis, or when a text fits with one of their ideas, then it usually turns out that portion is called historical. Then that Gospel author may be pronounced as being correct at that point. But when a text would hurt their case, especially when it would take a major toll on their ideas, then that passage is almost always rejected, sometimes with the passing comment that we know that there are myriads of problems in the Gospels anyway, and this is one of them.57

Since the Gospel texts are viewed both by Tabor and Lowder as being generally unreliable, it does appear to be rather convenient when the points they need for their theses are all of a sudden precisely the ones that are considered to be quite reliable. Conversely, when heavy considerations in the texts oppose our view, we should reject those options rather than prefer another route, unless the reasons in its favor are stronger.58

Other problematic issues show up in these arguments too. There are two more serious problems that arise from the admitted lack of evidence at key junctures in the double-burial scenarios, along with what appears to be some picking and choosing from the “unreliable” Gospel texts, as just mentioned. Equally serious to the above two issues are the following question: Why were the empty tomb accounts as related in all four Gospels concerned only with Jesus’s first burial, but not the second one? After all, Jesus’s final resting place would have been more important than an intermediate one.59 But then, why is the clear impression in each of the Gospels that Joseph’s tomb was both Jesus’s first and his final place of interment as well as the place from which Jesus rose? Clearly, that’s what the angelic messengers stationed at the wrong tomb proclaimed too! Another huge issue here is this one: since these Gospels were apparently not written until thirty to sixty-five years later, they had far more than enough time to get the matter straightened out during those decades. This is an absolutely huge matter, for it indicates that neither the Gospel writers nor their earlier sources (such as the pre-Markan text)60 accepted a double-burial thesis or attempted to explain it away.61

We also mentioned above the recognition of the Jewish story of Jesus’s disciples stealing his body.62 This account seems to represent the Jewish side of the issue, as we will argue below, and the Jews likewise are not knowledgeable of a later, second burial.

Though a much smaller issue than the more momentous ones that we have raised above, according to Tabor and Lowder, it is also curious why Joseph might have felt the need to move the body again. Tabor thinks the tomb was not that of Joseph but that it was a convenient nearby tomb, meaning that Jesus’s body would have to be moved again,63 while Lowder thinks Joseph moved Jesus’s body to another place more fitting for one killed as a criminal!64 Probably the more common suggestion in the literature is that Joseph wished to save the tomb for his own family. On the last thesis, though, why would this be the motivation for another move when ossuaries were small and the tombs usually contained several places for burial?65

So overall, the evidence stands heavily against a second burial for Jesus’s body. The weightiest reasons include the lack of any evidence for the reburial position and the picking and choosing of Gospel texts to weave an account around the known data to avoid pitfalls. Additionally, the Gospels and their sources unanimously only know of a first burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb and the women’s trip to that tomb, and none of these traditions apparently reflect any knowledge of the final one from which Jesus also rose and appeared, as announced in the angelic proclamation. In any of these scenarios, Jesus still could have been raised from the dead.66

Against these sorts of doubt and challenges, can the traditional burial of Jesus, as depicted in the canonical Gospels, be established as the strongest, most likely historical position? Peter Stuhlmacher is representative of the majority of scholars who consider alternate options and then reject them.67 What does a matchup of the various charges and countercharges indicate? Before analyzing the chief question of the traditional burial, we turn initially to another biblical question from the Gospel of Matthew.

The Guard at the Tomb in Matthew

The story of the Jewish leaders visiting Pilate and requesting that a guard be positioned in front of Jesus’s tomb in the Gospel of Matthew will be treated in more than one place in this study—in both this chapter and elsewhere.68 According to the majority of scholars, Matthew indicates that the conversation with Pilate and the posting of the guard occurred on the Sabbath—Saturday (Matt 27:62). The comments in the Gospel of Peter are much more confusing, depending on whether or not the author is employing Jewish time practices with regard to the arrival of the guard on Friday or Saturday.69 This scene could be an important puzzle piece in the overall burial and empty tomb accounts.

We will assume here that, according to Matthew, the guard was most likely stationed in front of the tomb on Saturday, the day after the crucifixion. These initial moves preceded the tomb being found empty the next day, hence pertaining best to our treatment here of the burial accounts, even though there may be some overlap with our empty tomb treatment (27:62). The further part played by the guards on “the first day of the week” following the descent of an angel definitely belongs to the account of the empty tomb (28:4, 11–15) and thus is discussed in that chapter. Some initial questions concern us here with the posting of the guard.

The historicity of this entire account of the guard is rejected by virtually all critical scholars, minus the most conservative members of this research community, and not simply by those on the skeptical side. It seems like myriads of reasons to deny the reality of this story emanate from a host of different directions. Some of the more popular complaints involve the entire account having a fictional character, flavor, or “feel” to it. That it only appears in Matthew is a significant factor. Then there is the overly obvious attempt to introduce apologetic motifs to buttress the tomb against grave robbers such as Jesus’s own disciples, as well as this scenario being the precursor to a grand supernatural set of events the next day that included the guards. Moreover, why would the Jewish leaders understand the intent of Jesus’s resurrection predictions when they visited Pilate, while Jesus’s disciples just did not get it?

Additionally, what if Matthew introduced the incident to make the Jewish leaders look evil? Or, if the guards were present at the tomb when the women arrived, could not they have stopped them on Sunday morning as well? Further, could Jesus’s own predictions of his resurrection have framed the reasoning behind this entire scenario?70 Also, if the theft of the body were not already taken as a possibility, the scene would not have been described in the first place.71

Though further down the list of questions regarding Matthew’s guard account, both Christians and non-Christians alike may be displeased with what they deem to be distasteful notions like the idea that unbelievers might share in witnessing the upcoming miraculous scenarios, or Matthew’s implication that faith is incapable of standing on its own, thus requiring some objective evidence to buttress it. Did this account inspire the later, incredibly detailed Gospel of Peter account of the Roman guards? Hybrid positions involving mixes and amalgams of such critical views are also possible.

One of the reasons just mentioned for rejecting Matthew’s account was the perceived extravagance of the supernatural events. On Sunday morning a shining angel descends, rolls back the stone, and sits on it, revealing an empty tomb. Shortly thereafter the bewildered guard leave the scene in quite a hurry to report back to those who hired them. While this moves us beyond an initial overview of events at the tomb, it opens an entire host of various other responses to the supernatural elements involved. However, many commentators do not proceed very far beyond an initial, brief comment that this entire episode is simply a legendary report.

The Potential Identity of the Guards

Whether the guards were Roman or Jewish is doubtless an intriguing question for some. However, it generally occupies comparatively little time from recent scholars. Although lists of those who hold this or that view still can be found in the literature, there is a basic problem with launching such an inquiry in the first place. Since the historicity of the entire pericope is doubted so widely by researchers, it seems to be the view that pausing to ask this question has very little meaning. One can almost imagine this response: “Frankly, who cares; it does not make any real difference whichever view one holds!”

On the other hand, though it is a minority position, those who think that there is reason to hold (or at least to be open to) the historicity of this passage may think that the case for the burial and empty tomb is enhanced depending on the identity of the guards. Even among these scholars, both views are taken.

General reasons in favor of either a Roman or a Jewish guard can be insightful, though we will be brief in our summation here. Favoring a Roman guard is that the Jewish priests and elders went to Pilate to ask for the permission in the first place (Matt 27:62). Since the Jewish leaders had their own temple guards, seeking Pilate’s permission would hardly seem to be necessary. We are told that, just the day before, Joseph of Arimathea also went to Pilate for the purpose of requesting Jesus’s dead body for burial, and the request was granted (Matt 27:57–58). Since that appeal was due to the Romans having sentenced and crucified Jesus, with Roman soldiers having carried out the execution, it was their decision. Besides, asking for the Roman soldiers to guard the tomb would seem to make the most sense, because it would constitute the strongest position for the Jews, who wanted to be rid once and for all of any more shenanigans with Jesus’s body.

Further, securing the soldiers’ well-being with Pilate after the incident, just in case the word got to him that the men were sleeping on the job (Matt 28:14), hardly makes sense if the men were essentially a private temple institution unconnected to any Roman jurisdiction. To persuade Pilate on behalf of temple guards would seem to be totally unnecessary if the guard consisted of only private guards.

Arguing for the Jewish temple guards is more difficult. One fair question for this position, however, is why the guards reported to the Jewish elders instead of going straight to Pilate (Matt 27:11).72 But if Pilate had given his permission for a Roman guard, it would have been quite normal to report to those to whom they were then assigned.

Some take the comment in Matt 27:65 as Pilate telling the high priests that they already have their own (Jewish) guard, so they should just make use of them. But most exegetical commentators, past and present, seem not to interpret the Greek text that way. For example, New Testament scholar Robert Mounce argues, “The Greek echete is probably imperative . . . rather than indicative.” The meaning, then, is that Pilate was granting their request to place a Roman guard at the tomb entrance.73

All things considered, then, the presence of Roman guards at the tomb make the most sense of Matthew’s account. The force of seeking Pilate’s otherwise unneeded permission in the first place, as well as protecting the guards from any potential fury should Pilate hear the story of their having fallen asleep, are powerful signals as to what happened. On the other hand, the points in favor of the temple guard are much weaker in comparison. But as we have said, this does not contribute much to the overall question of the historicity of the account itself.

Addressing Objections to the Historicity of Matthew’s Guard Scenario

The complaint that only Matthew reports this story is still voiced quite frequently, but the objection may be mitigated somewhat more at present. True enough, it does seem odd that if Matthew’s guard at the tomb were a historical report, at least one other canonical Gospel author would have contained the same or a similar account to buttress their own case by including hostile witnesses. But attempting to judge whether or not another of the three Gospel authors would necessarily have known of an account can be a risky thing and should not detain us overly long in an ancient world where communication and the recording of stories were seldom done in a precise manner. Not knowing or having heard a story that appeared elsewhere, perhaps written and published halfway across the Mediterranean world and at a different time, should not constitute a surprising or pejorative verdict. First-century folk did not listen to the daily news!

Further, what is to be done with the myriads of important stories in the ancient world, as well as some of those in the Gospels themselves, that are also attested by only a single source? Another author including the account would have been especially helpful when the event in question—Jesus raising the dead—would also have bolstered the credibility of the other sources too.

For example, of the three times where the Gospel authors record the rather major claim that Jesus raised some person from the dead, only the account of Jairus’s daughter appears in more than one Gospel. Still, this does not impede Graham Twelftree from judging that all three instances (including the widow of Nain’s son in Luke and the story of Lazarus in John) are to be rated among the very best in terms of their likelihood of historicity.74 John Meier agrees with that judgment regarding Jairus’s daughter, which he thinks “goes back to some event in Jesus’ ministry.” Though he judges that the other two cases are “more tenuous” in nature, Meier thinks that they too probably go back to historical incidents.75 Yet, any of these three highly supernatural reports of raising the dead are far more bombastic than Matthew’s burial account of the guards alone, which then certainly may look more likely, at least on the surface.

One other matter needs to be mentioned here. Matthew is not the only ancient source that mentions the guards at the tomb. The noncanonical Gospel of Peter also dramatically affirms the presence of the guard at Jesus’s tomb.76 But the largest change in the discussion at this point is not due to the actual discovery of this noncanonical work, which occurred in the late nineteenth century, or even to its much earlier rejection as a canonical writing in the early church.77 Rather, the changing perspective on this discussion at present is due to the perceived date of the Gospel of Peter being moved earlier than in the past, closer to the first century.78 James Charlesworth points out that, while a few scholars like John Dominic Crossan may exempt a key text here and there, “all scholars agree” that the Gospel of Peter “appeared as a work in the second century CE.”79

Though not tipping the scales in favor of the historicity of the guards in Matthew alone among the canonical Gospels, or for sure not affirming the historicity of the Gospel of Peter either, studies in the Gospel of Peter have brought a new perspective to the subject of late. The time span between the canonical and the noncanonical Gospels here has grown closer.

So there are a few potential responses to the question of why the guards at the tomb (or, for that matter, two of the three stories of Jesus raising the dead) were only reported in a single canonical Gospel account. Whatever the potential answers—such as the physical distance between the authors, or the lack of mutual familiarity with every aspect of each other’s writings, or there indeed being another ancient source or two that mentions the guard, and so on—we may assume that the presence of important accounts in only one Gospel source is not due to the lack of interest or respect for the other accounts, or the judgment that the other Gospel was automatically reporting legends. It could well be said, then, that despite Matthew alone telling the story of the guards at Jesus’s tomb, this does not necessarily entail that this account was rejected by the other Gospel writers. After all, though the subject of historical confirmation has been the chief thrust throughout this study, even events that are supported by less or no evidence at all could still have occurred.

Nonetheless, an issue or two here does seem to cause somewhat more consternation for scholars. For example, if the text is taken in a straightforward manner, why should it be the case that the Jewish leaders appear to have listened and understood Jesus’s predictions of his resurrection both better than as well as earlier than the disciples? Different answers have been suggested.

One thought surrounds the grief and sudden angst caused by Jesus’s absolutely shocking announcements as they came crashing down against his followers. They just could not process this teaching of Jesus’s imminent death, even if accompanied by his resurrection.80 It was just too much of a complete shock—too much, too fast! Such turmoil would naturally conflict with Jesus’s students’ most cherished beliefs, militating against their own hopes and dreams for the future of Israel as well as the place of Jesus himself in the kingdom (cf. especially the words in Luke 24:19–21a before the realization that Jesus had been raised from the dead).

One only needs to remember the disciples’ repeated lack of understanding of Jesus’s resurrection teachings (Mark 9:32), their subsequent and perhaps stultifying fear (cf. Mark 10:32), unbelief (Mark 8:32), and resistance against these ideas to the extent that they responded to the upsetting comments by asserting that they would be prepared to fight and even to die for Jesus if need be (Mark 10:29–31). Such responses may indicate the presence of just such sheer psychological apprehension and terror. Besides, recording these incidents is also quite embarrassing in itself.

Beyond the disciples’ numbing fear warping their ideas and hopes on these topics, perhaps the trained theological leaders of the people had an advantage and would indeed have understood Jesus’s words better. On the other hand, this was probably a simple precautionary move by the leaders that necessitated neither belief in Jesus’s words nor understanding of Jesus’s meaning in the first place, given that an individual rising again from the dead would be a difficult concept regardless. They only knew that they had to stop any potential “resurrection” precisely then and there (Matt 27:63, “that imposter,” NRSV; “that deceiver,” NIV).

The point, then, could well have been to merely make absolutely sure that the book had been closed on this matter by ensuring the finality of Jesus’s irreversible death—sort of a “just in case” afterthought. On this notion, though they rejected the idea of either Jesus’s resurrection or sometimes even that of other individuals, as with the Sadducees in Acts 23:8, they still did not want to miss or overlook some possibility. They may have deemed that they were too close to victory here to fail.

Further, this may actually be the best surmisal for explaining why the Jewish leaders did not go to Pilate until Saturday, which is anything but the best option if they really were worried about a resurrection! Precisely as the passage attests, the leaders apparently realized, almost as an afterthought, that not coming to grips with this issue could spell disaster for them. This is expressed well in the words that then “the last deception would be worse than the first” (Matt 27:64 NRSV). That appears like it could well be the real issue for the Jewish leaders, a sort of scenario where they simply wanted to be prepared for any situation. This was a crucial time for them and they wanted to finish the task.81 Of course, while this proposed explanation may fit well with some aspects of Matthew’s account, it remains somewhat conjectural and many scholars still conclude that they are simply unsatisfied with the possibility that the Jewish leaders understood Jesus’s words better than his own disciples.82

Brown appears to be even more bothered by what the account of the guards in Matthew would do to the other empty tomb accounts, especially in the Synoptic Gospels. If the women knew of the guard, how could they simply walk to the tomb and wonder who was going to move away the stone for them, thinking that they would be there alone? Their much larger problem, of course, was what to do about the guards. So why would the women think that the guards, whoever they were, would even allow them inside the tomb in the first place?83

But Brown’s concern here hardly seems to be a huge obstacle, because it could conceivably (or even quite likely) be the case that the women just plain would have had no knowledge whatsoever of the guards being there in the first place. Whatever we conclude about Matthew’s account, the idea certainly seems to be that the meeting between the Jewish leaders and Pilate was a private one, and the women, without knowing of this Sabbath collaboration, would just have been heading to the tomb to finish the anointing process that had not been completed a couple of days earlier (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1).

While there are doubtless some tough questions for any defense of Matthew’s text regarding the guards at the tomb, nonetheless, there are also some thoughtful rejoinders—difficulties that work against the most common critical stance that this Gospel records a legend chiefly to enhance the empty tomb and resurrection tales.84 For example, if the critics are right about Matthew’s report of the guards being unhistorical and fabricated to enhance his overall story, the author of Matthew does an absolutely horrible job (and more than once) of weaving a legendary story.

Consider the following issues. As we have seen, the Jewish leaders did not even make their plea to Pilate for a guard until the next day. That leaves hours for the perpetration of the fraud that they claimed they were so worried about!85 So how serious and concerned were the Jewish leaders after all? As atheistic skeptic Richard Carrier makes the point, there was plenty of time here for the deed to have been both hatched and accomplished within a day.86 The guard presumably would have checked to make sure the body was still interred there, otherwise there would have been very little need to even stand out in front of the entrance to an empty sepulcher. But still, why the delay at all?

Yet, on the charge of Matthew inventing a narrative to charge Jewish fraud in order to establish the empty tomb, how do we explain the lateness of the Saturday request? Or if the guard had faithfully checked the tomb beforehand and ascertained that Jesus dead body was indeed still there, as would make the most sense, at least the fact that the reader is never told that morsel of information would have left yet another serious lacuna at a vital juncture. Either way, there is a marked lack of any careful effort to cover all the possible critical scenarios in Matthew’s account.

These “lapses” in the story subtract many or perhaps even most of the supposed benefits that Matthew purportedly hoped to gain in concocting the story to add apologetic value to his Gospel. While sealing the tomb may have provided some minor prod in the apologetic direction (Matt 27:66), it would provide little assurance unless the body was inside. So why mention the seal at all while neglecting to tell the reader that Jesus’s dead body was securely stashed away inside the rock beforehand?

One other item here: when the angel appeared, he shone “like lightning” (Matt 28:3). But when Jesus appeared, it was simply as a normal man who could be touched and even held by the feet (28:9). So was the angel somehow loftier than Jesus? Who is the hero of the story here after all? Why is there not a halo or sunbeam to adorn at least Jesus’s head when the women see him (28:9–10), or later when Jesus appears in Galilee? If these are apologetic stories, after all, they need to clearly reveal their apologetic purposes or they serve very little value.

Did the women have to be concerned about the guards stopping them from entering the tomb to complete their burial work on Jesus’s body? As we have argued in this chapter, the women almost certainly had no prior knowledge of the guard’s presence, since the Jewish leaders’ arrangement with Pilate was private, plus the deal was negotiated on the Sabbath, which the women would presumably have been observing. Further, once the angel descended, the text makes it clear that the guards were groveling in the dirt, thus in no condition to stop anyone (28:4).

So the “overly obvious legend” that critics so often find in the guard story in Matthew begins not to look quite so obvious anymore, as some critics would have us think. On these grounds, it sounds more like a botched job followed by a bungled message. The Christian reader is just forced to ask too many tough questions here, and, as an argument, there are far too many loose ends. The role of the guards in the ongoing story of the empty tomb remains.87

More on the Gospel of Peter

Continuing the “Matthean legend” considerations, many scholars have contrasted and compared the burial and resurrection accounts in the Gospel of Peter to its canonical counterparts.88 According to many critical scholars, the Gospel of Peter was written reasonably close enough to Matthew to at least be considered in historical Gospel discussions. Ehrman includes the Gospel of Peter as one of his more than a dozen decently-dated sources early enough to count as evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus.89

Yet, the difference between the Gospel of Peter and any of the four canonical Gospels, including John, is utterly amazing. This is especially the case if the Gospel of Peter is dated a mere thirty years or so after John as the first Gospel to follow the four canonical ones. In virtually every point of comparison, there is no doubt that the Gospel of Peter is far more bombastic than any of the canonical Gospels.

In the Gospel of Peter, the Jewish elders go to Pilate so that they might get soldiers to help them guard the tomb for three days (Gos. Pet. 8:28–31), implying that they could have come at the beginning of the burial period.90 Pilate assigns the Roman centurion Petronius and his soldiers to the task (8:31). The elders and scribes come to the tomb and join the soldiers there (8:32–33). The tomb is sealed with seven seals (8:33–37). Then “a multitude” of people come and visit the sealed tomb (9:34).

While the soldiers are present, the heavens open and two men descend in a great light, and when they come near the tomb, the stone rolls away of its own accord (9:35–37), as if the mere presence of the men was sufficient to remove it. The men enter the tomb and return supporting a third seemingly wounded man. The heads of the two initial men rise to the heavens, but the head of the third person soars above the heavens! A cross also follows the men out of the tomb. In answer to a question from a heavenly voice, the cross responds positively that it had indeed preached to those who slept (9:38–42)!

The soldiers report all of this to Pilate, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God (11:43–45). Then Pilate maintains his own innocence and forbids the centurion and the soldiers to talk to anyone about these things (11:46–49).

Even a shortened list of the miraculous elements in the Gospel of Peter is amazing. A crowd of witnesses observes the events, watching as two huge angel-like men descend in a great light, enter the tomb, and emerge supporting an even taller man.91 A talking cross follows the men out from the tomb. The soldiers declare that Jesus was indeed the Son of God.

Returning to what may be the original, most serious question, while Matthew’s account of the guards at the tomb exhibits some apologetic interest, it is arguably not excessive. Again, this is especially when presented alongside the obvious lapses in the very same Gospel that we pointed out above, where answering just a few questions could have strengthened Matthew’s scenario significantly in evidential terms. Comparing Matthew to the Gospel of Peter, Matthew ranks far behind the latter in terms of the obvious development of legend. It is difficult to even compare the texts.92

On the other hand, if simply viewing the details within Matthew itself, then this apologetic interest conflicts with its own storytelling, being at cross-purposes more than once with its own interests. As we have seen, it starts the guarding process at the tomb too late and does not tell its readers if the body was still even in the tomb the next day when the guards were posted, or if the guards ever checked inside. But it does mention the sealing of the tomb! These details simply leave too many gaps and questions to see any highly sustained or heavily apologetic flavor.

A Historical Verdict on the Guards

Of course, the chief critical question here is not whether another text such as the Gospel of Peter contains more legendary material than Matthew, or even if Matthew did a more commendable job in respect to its far more reserved writing. Our major question is whether the critical hypothesis regarding Matthew’s initial account of the guards at the tomb can be largely sustained on its own. Does the text in Matthew teach history or legend?

Other issues such as Matthew’s apparent apologetic motif and its overtones, fictional-sounding aspects of this guard story, predictive resurrection prophecies by Jesus,93 the account leading to the presence of supernatural events, the question whether evidence can or even should augment faith, and the extent to which un-believers may share any of this, are all secondary issues. This is at least the case in the sense that the key matters here turn on both one’s own worldview along with whether none, some, or even all of these things narrated by Matthew actually happened.

In other words, at least theoretically, the account of the guards could potentially be quite historical and scholars may still conclude that Matthew built up the accounts apologetically (though far less so than the Gospel of Peter). But on such a scenario that apologetic interests were added, the events themselves still could certainly have occurred. Similarly, one, most, or perhaps even all of the remaining objections could be true, in whole or in part, with Jesus still rising from the dead in space-time history. The historical answers to these questions will definitely turn the dial one way or the other. Thus these historical inquiries in particular need to be settled before the other items can be, since the historical concerns are the ones that tip the scales.

Once again then, many of the overarching, most crucial questions before us in our entire study of Jesus’s death and resurrection concern which events can be historically sustained and which cannot. Is there enough of a foundation to build an appropriately strong case to call these historical events?

As with historical investigations everywhere, some cases are underdetermined with a view to the available evidence. As ancient historian Paul Maier states, especially when studying ancient history, some events are determined by a single source, whereas two or three reports “generally” establish an event firmly.94 In a select few cases in the ancient world, historical investigations can deal with the presence of little to no backup data at all, to having more evidence than we need. Which is the case here?

There’s another crucial point to mention here as well. Once again, not possessing enough historical and other sorts of criteria to establish an event is far from saying that the particular event did not occur. It simply means that a claimed occurrence cannot be “proven,” at least according to some individuals. But “not proven” does not equal “did not occur.” It is true that, in principle, the event in question either did or did not happen. Yet, at present, there simply may not be enough straightforward evidence to judge properly one way or another. But this is definitely not the final indication of the overall historical status of a report.

However, events without any evidence at all can and do still occur. If the veil were removed and the true panorama of ancient events could be watched in a straightforward manner, we would no doubt be exceptionally surprised to see all that had occurred in the past—many of these events without any “proof” whatsoever. Many others would never have been recorded at all. It involves a philosophical point: the ontological status of an actual historical occurrence in space and time is not the same as possessing epistemological justification of that occurrence. The former no doubt is often the case without the latter.

For a relevant example that might be compared to the matters before us, when Graham Twelftree examined the case for Jesus being a miracle worker, he was very careful to point out that just because a few Gospel cases do not have enough data to conclude for sure that they occurred just as claimed, this definitely does not mean that those events never happened at all. It just indicates that they cannot be “proven” historically, and that’s quite a different matter.95

So does the case of the guards at Jesus’s tomb fit this scenario? Matthew is a first-century source, usually dated from thirty to fifty years after the crucifixion. Though not the earliest writing in the New Testament, that is close enough to be relevant, especially in the ancient world. But this account does not appear in any of the other canonical Gospels, which would help significantly to establish the empty tomb.

The Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of the Nazarenes are second-century texts. But as we have seen in some detail, the level of embellishment grows significantly in these later writings, which is quite surprising, especially if they are as close to the first century as some have concluded. This incredible difference in the substantive retelling of the story between Matthew and the Gospel of Peter could constitute a sufficient reason to examine more closely whether the latter text might actually be dated later than the first quarter of the second century.96 But however that issue is solved, these two second-century texts are not terribly helpful in evaluating this case.

So the sources for the guards at the tomb are not overly strong in evidential terms. However, N. T. Wright and others think there are indications that there may well be an earlier source that lies behind Matthew’s report here. For example, Wright points out that the description of Jesus in Matt 27:63 as “the deceiver” (ekeinos ho planos) could very well go back to the Jewish complaint that Jesus was a magician or false prophet. Thus, “we must treat this material as at least potentially going back behind the evangelists to earlier tradition.”97 Further, Wright argues that the natural explanation of how Jesus’s tomb became empty seems itself to have been an old story in the Christian community, again predating Matthew’s story here.98 As such, the report could be very early and would predate Matthew’s M source.

In a 2010 Finnish doctoral dissertation on the subject of the guards at the tomb, Matti Kankaanniemi argues that there was indeed a pre-Matthean source behind Matthew’s Gospel account of the guards at the tomb. Kankaanniemi begins by surveying a number of arguments for the nonhistoricity of this story, along with several indications that Matthew was employing verbiage from another source, investigating the claims and counterclaims.99 He concludes that the evidence indicates that the women’s trips to the tomb were not invented, and that it was the Jewish leaders who spread the story that Jesus’s disciples stole his dead body to counter the Christian resurrection teachings. While it is difficult to say if the guards were ever really present at the tomb or not, that’s not crucial to the overall account in Matthew. Years later, it was the Christians who denied the story of the disciples’ theft to counter the long-standing Jewish claims.100

In sum, Kankaanniemi draws the final conclusion that the strength of the account as a pre-Matthean story outweighs alternative suggestions. The women’s trip to the tomb was historical, there are no strong reasons to conclude that Matthew concocted the tale, the Jewish accusation of the theft was very old, and the notion of the guards was invented by the Jewish leaders themselves. Matthew’s account of this story, though of course before the writing of his Gospel, is not exceptionally old because the pre-Markan, pre-Lukan, and pre-Johannine sources did not know of it.101

Interestingly, in assessing a number of terms in Matthew’s guard account that have been suggested as being derived from an earlier source, Kankaanniemi, like Wright, singles out the phrase ekeinos ho planos as having quite a bit of significance. Of the forty-eight times the term ekeinos is used in Matthew outside of the tomb story, thirty-seven or thirty-eight of these uses do not involve time expressions. In these thirty-eight cases, ekeinos follows the noun every single time except one—the lone exception being the way the word is employed in Matt 27:63 in the guard account. Kankaanniemi argues that this single exception is just “hard to dismiss as sheer coincidence” and that this rare usage argues for Matthew having employed an earlier source.102 That this text is also the occasion where Jesus is referred to as a “deceiver” very likely points to the earlier Jewish usage where he was believed to be a false prophet.

In light of the above, what are we to make regarding the historicity of the guards at the tomb in strictly historical terms? Where do these data leave us? Supporting the majority negative assessment specifically on Matthew’s story of the guard at Jesus’s tomb, the argument that is most difficult to ignore is still the observation that Matthew alone seems to know of the account in a situation where it would have been very helpful for this pericope to be employed elsewhere in other Gospel scenarios in favor of an empty tomb. While the Gospel of Peter also knows at least the general story, it is too late and fanciful at virtually all points to be very helpful. Of course, the supernatural scenarios of a dazzling angel and the appearances of the risen Jesus will nearly always rouse the ire of naturalists.

Opposed to these difficulties, the mid- to late first-century date for Matthew’s Gospel (thirty to fifty years after the crucifixion) is quite decent if not exceptional, especially for reports from the ancient world. Further, the possible and likely case for an earlier pre-Matthean account of the guard at the tomb increases the prospects for an even earlier date. The occurrence of supernatural events depends more on the separate issue of whose worldview is correct and best supported but is not solved by historical observations alone. But naturalists and other anti-supernaturalists ought not object to historical data favoring Jesus’s resurrection unless they can first establish naturalism. This worldview cannot simply be assumed, especially as it usually is, without sufficient support.

Can any sort of historical case be made for Matthew’s account of the guards at the tomb? All things considered, decently early data are present in this case, but the accounts are still not as early as some might like. Any potential supporting data (such as from the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of the Nazarenes) are quite weak.103 Even if these two latter sources are still within a 100-year window after Jesus’s crucifixion allowed by skeptical scholars like Ehrman,104 they are not close enough to be substantial in this circumstance. The Gospel of Peter in particular remains too late as well as too fanciful to help carve out a strong historical verdict. It may be helpful in a few things, but essentially eliminates itself. After all, there is a stark difference between sources that simply “make it” into a historical slot and those that can be used to build the essentials of a historical case. Peter may possibly make the first prerequisite but is incapable of leaping the latter barrier.

Simply on the matter of the guards being placed at the tomb in Matthew 27, then, it appears that the evidential edge goes to Matthew and his likely source.105 We will not solve here the presence or absence of the supernatural in the next chapter in Matthew without quite extensive arguments pro and con for this quite separate issue that will occupy us elsewhere. But on the guards alone, as N. T. Wright states, there is really nothing so terribly strange in itself regarding a Roman (or Jewish) watch being placed in front of Jesus’s tomb.106

Granted, a verified account of unbelieving guards stationed around Jesus’s tomb being impotent to keep the tomb from being found empty shortly thereafter would certainly be a major story—all the more so if the risen Jesus stepped out of the cave, as in many Christian paintings. But as absolutely intriguing as such an evidenced account would be, for several reasons at that, virtually no one would assert that the account of the guarded tomb would be necessary to establish either the empty tomb or Jesus’s appearances. We know this to be the case because Matthew’s story of the guards has seldom been used as evidence in recent years in scholarly research. This is probably due to the almost-unanimous critical suspicion expressed toward it. Still, even without referring to the guard (which he does not employ in his own apologetic argument!), Wright still claims that the empty tomb and subsequent appearances of Jesus were as historically probable as our knowledge of the death of Caesar Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in 70.107

Joseph of Arimathea and a Case for a Traditional, Private Burial

The accounts of Jesus’s dead body being buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb remain intriguing. The following items are among the ones that are mentioned in more than one Gospel: The request to take Jesus’s remains came in the evening, as Joseph approached Pilate. Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, a member of the Jewish Council, and he came from the town of Arimathea. After Pilate granted Joseph the body of Jesus, the latter took it down from the cross, prepared it, and placed it in his new tomb. Is this a reasonable historical scenario? What reasons favor its historicity?

After a detailed study, Raymond Brown points out the general historical certainty that Jesus was buried in one way or another and before the Sabbath as well. Then Brown also points out: “That the burial was done by Joseph from Arimathea is very probable.” Brown thinks that such a likelihood emerges from details such as these: A fictional creation by a Christian writer where a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin was the hero “is almost inexplicable” due to the exceptional hostility between Christians and Jews at this time, owing largely to the way Jesus’s death sentence came about. Further, the identification of Joseph being from the obscure town of Arimathea is also quite difficult to understand, especially given the difficulty of even identifying this place.108 Brown also discusses the issue of pre-Gospel burial traditions behind the Gospel accounts and finds them to be likely, favoring an oral over a written tradition and pointing to an earlier date for this report.109

In a debate on the subject of Jesus’s resurrection, William Lane Craig also makes a strong case on multiple grounds for the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. The burial of Jesus’s dead body is clearly attested in perhaps our earliest pre-Pauline creedal text in 1 Cor 15:3–5. Further, the proper burial in Joseph’s tomb is part of the pre-Markan material recognized and accepted by most critical scholars.110 Further, Joseph of Arimathea is an unlikely character to have been invented by the Gospel authors, without any apparent traces of legendary growth in the narratives. Other competing burial stories may be suggested, but which ones are better evidenced? After citing the importance of multiple attestation, Craig summarizes his argument by pointing out that Jesus’s burial is attested by “Paul’s formula, Mark’s passion source, the sermons in Acts, Matthew’s and Luke’s sources and John.”111

Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall also defend the existence of Joseph of Arimathea, though largely through producing four rejoinders directed to John Dominic Crossan’s thesis that Jesus was buried in a common grave as well as the other idea that “much of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter antedated Mark.” Crossan also argues that Mark is most likely the one who created the empty tomb account.

First, O’Collins and Kendall begin by contrasting Crossan with Rudolf Bultmann, the exceptionally influential though quite skeptical New Testament scholar of the past century who accepted the historicity of the burial narrative in Mark 15. They argue further that Raymond Brown and a host of other recent specialists like John Meier, Reginald Fuller, Walter Wink, J. B. Green, and especially Martin Hengel, “were little less than devastating in demolishing Crossan’s case” in their reviews.112

Second, O’Collins and Kendall argue against Crossan’s theme that the Gospel accounts are largely based on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy rather than historical reports. Again, they produce several major commentators who disagree, including Green’s charge that the direction of Crossan’s thesis runs contrary to the very latest studies of the Qumran pesharim texts, which suggest more of a historical interest that moves from actual events to biblical meanings rather than beginning with the latter.113

O’Collins’ and Kendall’s third critique questions Crossan’s theme concerning Mark’s creativity and considers it an overemphasis. Their fourth and last criticism utilizes the ideas in Mark that are better attested on historical grounds, in contrast to Crossan’s approach that would favor Mark’s creating these aspects from scratch by inventing the overall theme itself, including Joseph and his obscure hometown among other details.114

Hans Küng summarizes briefly his critique of the common-pit view or similar views as such: “The Crucified was not left to be covered over with earth as executed Jews usually were. Roman custom permitted the body to be handed over to friends or relatives.”115

In what follows below, we will summarize a case for a private burial of Jesus’s crucified body, incorporating some of the above positive arguments plus adding several additional considerations.116 These points below will consist chiefly of affirmative reasons in support of burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s own tomb, while some of these also function as critiques of various suggestions involved in the common burial thesis of Crossan and others.

(1) The traditional accounts involving burial in a tomb are multiply attested. At least three and possibly four Gospel sources agree on the basic burial scenario.117 Further, at least two of the very early Acts sermon summaries—the Petrine sermon (Acts 2:29–32, drawn from Acts 2:14–39 minus the comment in verse 37) and the Pauline sermon (Acts 13:34–37 from the speech in Acts 13:16–41)—clearly also teach a traditional burial.118 This is especially the case in Acts 2:29, where David is specifically said to have been buried in a tomb in which his body corrupted. In contrast, Jesus was buried but his body never decayed (2:31). Clearly, Jesus remaining on the cross while being ravaged by various sorts of creatures or being buried in a trench grave in the ground are simply not apt comparisons to David’s case here.

Though very brief, 1 Cor 15:4 packs a lot of punch and is probably the best attested of all the comments regarding Jesus’s traditional burial as well as probably the earliest (see the treatment immediately below). Lastly, with unfortunate tendencies to exhibit some rather heavy fantasies, the Gospel of Peter is at least another source for a traditional burial in a rock tomb.

Altogether, these seven sources provide an abundance of major texts that favor the traditional burial of Jesus.119 While nonscholars may suspect a conspiracy on the part of the authors of these texts, it must be recalled that these sources are independent and largely originate from difference places in the eastern Mediterranean world. There is truly an abundance of textual evidence for Jesus’s traditional burial.

(2) The sources for a traditional burial are also dated exceptionally early. Atheist New Testament scholar Ehrman even dates these specific Acts 2 and 13 sermon summaries at just one to two years after the crucifixion.120 An even stronger argument comes from the consensus New Testament position regarding 1 Cor 15:3–4, which records the burial of Jesus’s body and is also dated to about one to two years after the crucifixion.121 The burial account in Mark is dated by most New Testament scholars before AD 70, at only about thirty to forty years after the cross,122 with Matthew and Luke written just a couple of decades later at most, followed by John approximately another decade later. Though the Gospel of Peter is less valuable in a study of this nature, Ehrman still includes it as being dated within his 100-year window after the crucifixion.123 So all seven sources in the previous point above date within this same time frame. These early, traditional reports confirm the ancient belief that Jesus was buried in a tomb rather than in some unknown grave.

(3) Little is often said about eyewitness testimony for the burial, perhaps because only a few persons in New Testament times could provide it. But Richard Bauckham states:

In the Synoptic Gospels the role of the women as eyewitnesses is crucial: they see Jesus die, they see his body being laid in the tomb, they find the tomb empty. The fact that some of the women were at all three events means that they can testify that Jesus was dead when laid in the tomb and that it was the tomb in which he was buried that they subsequently found empty.124

Then Bauckham adds: “The way that all three Synoptic Gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing (Mt. 27.55; Mk 15.40; Lk. 23.49, 55) shows that the Gospels are appealing to their role as eyewitnesses.”125

(4) More specifically, not only is Jesus’s burial supported strongly by the exceptionally early and critically well-respected confessional statement in 1 Cor 15:3–4, but the Greek term for “bury” (thaptō) in the text (15:4) indicates careful burial in a tomb rather than a dug-out space in the ground. The term in this ancient tradition is associated with the Greek word taphos, which actually indicates a tomb. As skeptical New Testament scholar Dale Allison points out, “According to the primitive confession in 1 Cor. 15:4, Jesus was ‘buried.’ . . . The verb . . . would hardly be used of the unceremonious dumping of a criminal into an unmarked trench as dog food: that was not burial but its denial.” Nor is the verbiage consistent with not knowing where the body was placed.126 Some scholars apparently think that the careful analysis of the Greek in this very ancient traditional text here goes a long way toward refuting the common grave or “left on the cross” critical views. Allison mentions this reason as his first consideration in his eleven-point critique of Crossan and Spong and their denial of Jesus’s burial in a private rock tomb.127

(5) The pre-Markan passion account discussed above likely teaches the burial of Jesus’s body in Joseph’s new tomb as well and was probably Mark’s chief source at this point (and perhaps for the other two Synoptic Gospels as well). If it can be dated to ten or so years after the cross, as some think,128 and certainly before the appearance of Mark’s Gospel, then it is potentially yet another exceptionally early indication of the traditional burial account in a new, private tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, as it teaches.

(6) Besides the first point above of multiple attestation of sources, another historical criterion is that of multiple forms. The idea is that the presence of an event or teaching across different genres increases the likelihood that the incident is early and independent. In the case of Jesus, there are the Gospel narratives of the burial, the exceptionally early creedal mention in 1 Cor 15:4 along with the sermon summaries in Acts 2:29–32 and 13:34–37, and a metaphor for baptism in the formula of Rom 6:3–4.

(7) Sometimes, particular arguments for the empty tomb also argue backwards for the traditional burial of Jesus’s body by Joseph, as well as vice versa. The embarrassing detail found unanimously in all four Gospels is that the women were the initial witnesses to the empty tomb, especially with the men being nowhere to be seen. But this would also argue in favor of this location being the traditional burial tomb account. Given the accuracy of the women indeed being the initial witnesses to the tomb on that first day of the week, then this additionally favors that the tomb they went to was probably the correct place of burial. Of course the women could have been mistaken on the whereabouts of the body, but that would require an additional theory, while the account of them heading to this particular tomb argues more easily and directly that Joseph’s tomb was the correct one. Since the multiply attested data favor Joseph leading the burial detail with the women watching the procedures, this once again favors the traditional scenario that the women accurately knew the proper location.

(8) Another argument for the empty tomb is that the city of Jerusalem would absolutely be the very last place to proclaim as the actual location for Jesus’s empty tomb and resurrection appearances if that were not true, since some careful snooping might show that the early Christian message was false. But this reasoning works in reverse for the burial as well. For in the latter case, any amount of interviewing, inquisitiveness, or just plain prying on the part of Christianity’s enemies may have uncovered the real place of Jesus’s interment. The enemies of the early message would then have a ready-made catalyst to disprove the message! Again, Jerusalem is a bad place to make these sorts of burial or empty tomb claims if they are false. True, if Jesus’s body had been buried in the earth, then the available time element would have been briefer. But still, that the body was never located is an argument for the traditional burial and the emptiness of the tomb.

(9) As was noted above by Evans in his response to Ehrman, it was important for the Jews to bury the deceased according to Deut 21:22–23.129 Josephus indicates that the Jews were careful to perform burial rites even for crucifixion victims (J.W. 4.317; cf. 3.377). Given that Jesus was crucified during Passover, the religious sensibilities would have been heightened during this time, and it is likely that Pontius Pilate would not have prevented the Jews from burying Jesus. Allison rightly notes, “With Jesus executed, there was no reason to compound the public upset by keeping his body up on its cross and so offending either his followers or those anxious about the observance of Deuteronomy 21:22–23.”130

This would especially be the case during Passover since the number of people present in Jerusalem would have been much greater than normal, with some of them having praised Jesus just days before. Indeed, even Carrier notes that the Romans would have been sensitive to Jewish cultural practices here when he writes, “It is probable that Jewish law was applicable to the burial of Jesus even under Roman Government.”131 A further point to support these considerations is the discovery of the burial remains of the crucified victim Jehohanan, who was both crucified and buried individually.132

(10) Are we to conclude that the Jewish leaders who had tried for so long and so meticulously to silence Jesus’s voice, would have paid no attention whatever to his death and burial?133 To be so doubly sure that he was dead, only to lose track of his body afterward and be ignorant of the details of the burial, probably could well have been absolutely disastrous for them. They knew that too. And even though Joseph of Arimathea was described variously as a secret disciple of Jesus (Matt 27:57; John 19:38) or a righteous man (Luke 23:50), he was still a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the leaders could have checked with him on the burial information regarding where and how Jesus was buried. Allison even portrays Joseph burying the body here as a type of enemy attestation since Sanhedrin members would be unlikely to do this.134

So there is also very little likelihood that the Jewish leaders would have lost track of Jesus’s dead body. Leaving his body on the cross was not an option for them given their religious beliefs, and burying him in a shallow grave would have invited disaster and compromised the leaders’ ability to keep control of the situation.

Crossan’s suggestion that even the Roman soldiers would merely have forgotten the location of the burial just a few days before is likewise preposterous. They would have remembered where they buried anyone, let alone someone with such a momentous past as Jesus. Contrary to Crossan’s contention that Jesus was a “nobody,” the interest occasioned by his quite-public preaching, popularity, trial, and death would have ensured both the nature of their work as well as their memory. After all, they may have been called upon later to give evidence of the death and burial of this famous insurrectionist, just as Pilate had already summoned their own centurion (Mark 15:44–45). As Allison adds, Jesus’s crucifixion was quite public, and it is exceptionally likely that there would be many witnesses to his burial too. To Crossan’s comment that no one cared where Jesus was buried, Allison responds with a one-liner of his own: “My guess is that most everyone knew whether they cared or not.”135

(11) What about the earliest followers of Jesus? They had totally different reasons than the Jewish leaders and the soldiers for wanting to know precisely where Jesus had been buried. After all, they believed him to be their Savior and Lord. Also multiply attested is the affirmation that the women were present at both Jesus’s crucifixion and his burial,136 not to mention their returning to the same location again on Sunday morning because they believed that it was the exact spot where Jesus was buried just shortly before.137 Like the Jewish leaders, they did not know of any account other than Jesus’s body being buried in Joseph’s private tomb.

(12) Though perhaps a bit more tenuously (see the evaluation below), both the burial and the empty tomb are actually admitted by the Jewish polemic aimed at the Christian message. The response of the Jewish leaders in Matt 28:11–15 was reportedly that Jesus’s disciples came and stole his dead body, and that this report had continued to circulate at the time of the writing of this Gospel (28:15b), probably between AD 65 and 85.138 Curiously, both Justin Martyr (Dial. 108) and Tertullian (Spect. 30) report that the Jewish story of the disciples stealing Jesus’s dead body continued to be spread until at least the end of the second century. It would be incredible if this might have been the Jewish report instead of Crossan’s scenario. But if we are correct here, even the early Christians’ opponents admitted the traditional burial and empty tomb messages though disputing their causes.139 The only explanation we know about from the Jewish leaders, then, is that they blamed Jesus’s disciples with stealing his body from a tomb—they knew nothing about any burial in the dirt.

(13) On the other hand, no early documents dispute the traditional reports of where Jesus’s body was buried or that the tomb was empty. One might request that Crossan, Ehrman, Spong, or Carrier produce the specific data that support their theses. It is not surmisals that we request here—as in opaque meanings and (barely) possible interpretations, especially those that virtually the entire cadre of scholars both left and right challenge for good reasons. But several sorts of data and other responses would be needed to seriously challenge the thirteen arguments put forth here. Comebacks of this nature cannot rest on guesswork, unevidenced assumptions, or even on generalized practices among the Jews.

In sum, the multiply attested agreement of many early sources; the exceptional earliness of these accounts; the meaning of the Greek thaptō; the pre-Markan burial narrative; multiple source attestation; the testimony of the women; the Jerusalem proclamation of the apostles; the desires and memories of the Jews, Roman soldiers, and Christians alike; the Jewish polemic that admitted the traditional accounts of the burial and empty tomb accounts as well as the lack of straightforward challenges to the traditional burial of Jesus140 are an amazing mass of strong data—a formidable wall—in support of the traditional view of Jesus’s burial by Joseph of Arimathea.

On the other hand, the nontraditional burial views are held by comparatively few scholars, probably because their alternate claims are all frankly so weak. Each of the thirteen reasons we just gave above in favor of Joseph’s traditional burial counts against the rival positions such as Crossan’s. In particular, six of them hit the hardest: the multiple attestation of at least six sources; the exceptional earliness of the message about Joseph’s burial in a tomb, with a few of these sources possibly going back to just a year or two after the cross; the meaning of the Greek term thaptō, which specifies burial in a tomb; the likelihood of a pre-Markan burial source; and the Jewish countermessage that the disciples stole Jesus’s body. All these support a tomb burial and oppose a trench burial in the ground. Lastly, especially given the many evidences for the traditional view, the lack of any historical or other evidence for Crossan’s common burial view or the like is simply devastating to these positions. In short, it is not surprising that these other suppositions are quite simply unconvincing. Nothing even approaching strong evidence favors these rival hypotheses, where the chief, unstated conviction seems to be “anything but the traditional view taught in the Gospels.” Thus, this is apparently a worldview conviction or perhaps a preference, but definitely not one that is based in the least upon the clear data that we possess.141

As we have seen already and will see further below, the strength of the case that can be mounted for Joseph of Arimathea and his traditional burial has accrued a tremendous amount of testimony on behalf of this dominant, historical position. For instance, as James D. G. Dunn asserts rather decisively: “The tradition is firm that Jesus was given a proper burial (Mark 15.42–47 pars.), and there are good reasons why its testimony should be respected.”142 Dale Allison attests likewise, “Beyond Paul’s early witness, not only do all four canonical Gospels tell a story about Jesus’ burial, but each contains additional traditions presupposing that Jesus was not thrown onto a pile for criminals but rather interred.”143 Stephen T. Davis states, “The story of Joseph of Arimathea’s involvement in the burial of Jesus seems so strongly supported and inherently trustworthy that it renders the argument for an unknown tomb quite implausible.”144

The sort of data that has been assembled above is truly impressive, especially since it occupies what we have pictured as the valley that lies between the glorious mountains of Jesus’s crucifixion, resurrection, and appearances! The witness provided by this caliber of scholars should really cause one to wonder why there are serious doubts at all about Jesus’s traditional burial.

Conclusion

It has been noted frequently, here and elsewhere, that the Romans were quite efficient in their crucifixion methods, very often leaving the victims’ bodies on the crosses as carrion for the wild animals and birds as an example to others.145 But it is generally agreed by scholars that even crucifixion victims, especially in Israel but sometimes elsewhere as well, were allowed to be buried rather than having their bodies being left out in public, especially when the bodies were claimed by the victims’ families.146 This is almost always agreed to by skeptical scholars too.147

Taken together, the position that Jesus’s dead body was buried in the tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes the most historical sense, and by a wide evidential margin. Few critical scholars take the alternate views on these issues,148 though of this number, the grave scenario held by Crossan and preferred by Ehrman is doubtless the most common. While the reburial thesis preferred by Tabor and Lowder is less popular, a few scholars have taken this option as well.

This lineup probably points most to Crossan’s popularity and may also provide an indication of where the best evidence lies. With a few exceptions like those of these four critical scholars, relatively few have even provided many details as to why they preferred the common grave, double burial, or other related conclusions. The majority of the time, only terse one-liners denoting the critical positions are provided. Allison makes the pithy as well as amusing comment: “But why is Joseph of Arimathea at Jesus’ burial? One levelheaded explanation is that he was remembered as having been there.”149

Whether agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions in this chapter, the few researchers who take these alternate positions regarding Jesus’s burial may shed some light on the weaknesses involved in these other positions. The views we surveyed often provided very little detail regarding their positions, including either why they rejected the traditional burial view or why they decided in favor of their substitute positions. Those scholars who did provide more details were highlighted here. With others, it sometimes seems as if any view at all is an open option except for the traditional view taught in the Gospels. While this is not always the case, these few scholars here who preferred these alternatives may have allowed us to gain just a glimpse of why they were largely alone: the evidential support for their positions was meager and not very strong.

Though we cannot of course be positive and are unable to read minds, this absence of strong reasons to hold these other positions signals the preferences and weaknesses just mentioned, hence allowing the insights that we have made. The traditional burial position of Jesus’s body as described in the Gospels is rather amazingly well evidenced, certainly the best supported of these views. Combined with the lack of virtually any evidence for the other side, it is difficult to avoid the earlier conclusion that the nontraditional choices that oppose the Gospel renditions seem to be due to personal and worldview preferences rather than resulting from any solid arguments.

Notes

1 Earlier we distinguished between a longer listing of a dozen or so known or accepted historical facts that were recognized by the majority of recent critical scholars. This list was followed by a shorter, pared-down number of “minimal facts” that we cut down to approximately half the length of the longer list of accepted data. This second, shorter list is still capable of demonstrating the strength of the historical case for Jesus’s death and resurrection, even though it is based on just a very few well-evidenced historical facts plus the accredited, individual data that confirm these few facts. From that earlier study here, Jesus’s burial belongs in the initial, longer list only.

2 By way of careful clarification, much of the material in this and the forthcoming chapters is not intended to be commentaries or expositions of the original languages, nor treatises on hermeneutics. Hopefully some good insights will be presented from each of these areas, building quite regularly upon the works of both liberal and conservative specialists. Though the author is trained in a few of these areas, this is simply not the angle taken here, where additional scholarship is readily obtainable. This is also not a straightforward historical survey such as might be the case with an introductory New Testament volume, or even a consecutive accounting of the historical events in the early church, filling in the gaps in other studies, though this gets us somewhat closer to our concerns in these volumes. Rather, in keeping with the entire thrust of this study, our chief emphasis rests centrally on what may be ascertained most securely regarding what have been termed “the minimal facts,” as well as the slightly longer list of accepted historical facts. Even with the latter list, we will emphasize most the strongest historical evidence and other confirmation for these events, even though the latter list perhaps will not possess the same evidential prowess as will the short list of minimal facts. Tangential areas of lesser import to our chief concerns—such as scholarly views, interesting comments, and other aspects—do show up but are often left to the background. Therefore, readers should expect that we will be frequently passing over some questions that interest them, but that are not in our line of fire, so to speak, or which may show up in another location of these texts. These caveats must be borne in mind throughout, for they will most likely not be repeated often.

3 Mark 15:43–46; Matt 27:57–60; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38.

4 As pointed out earlier, Pilate’s request of the centurion in Mark raises its own questions, including why a nonmedical person would even be able to answer this question in the first place.

5 Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:55–56.

6 Crossan, Jesus, 152–58, quotation on 158 (see chap. 6, n. 44); also Crossan, Historical Jesus, 391–94 with the same quotation on 394 (see chap. 6, n. 44). A later expression by Crossan is found in his volume Who Killed Jesus?, chap. 6, esp. the summary on 187–88 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

7 John Hick, The Center of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 25.

8 Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 241 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

9 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 88 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

10 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 533, 568 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

11 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

12 Gerd Lüdemann, “Opening Statement,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 43.

13 Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 98–100 (see chap. 15, n. 6).

14 Sheehan, First Coming, 101 (see excursus 1, n. 16).

15 Richard C. Carrier, “The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 380. Carrier states that “the law probably required Joseph to bury Jesus Saturday night in a special public graveyard reserved for blasphemers and other criminals of comparable ignominy” (371). Later, Carrier repeats similarly, “Jesus, as a blasphemer, would be earmarked for stoning and thus for the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned.” On 390n31, Carrier lists a range of possible charges worthy of stoning.

16 Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, states, “The Gospel narratives give many hints that the burial of Jesus was dishonorable and that this was a source of shame for the early Christian community” (446). Because of the alleged development of the “charming” story of Joseph of Arimathea, the hints of the women anointing Jesus’s deceased body, and the lack of tomb veneration, Parsons believes these are indications that Jesus was dishonorably buried: “It seems to me that the Gospel writers have created an elaborate legend of Jesus’ honorable burial to mitigate early Christians’ shame at what was probably the dishonorable fate of Jesus’ corpse” (447). What is the bottom line of Parson’s surmisals here? A crucial question might be this: in Parsons’s estimation, was Jesus’s alleged dishonorable burial a larger shame for the Christian community than was the crucifixion itself, especially when being hung on a tree was a curse (Deut 21:23)? Since the “stumbling block” of the cross was redeemed, becoming an indispensable portion of the centermost message of the gospel itself, how much less would the burial be a problem? Perhaps this is an indication that too long has been spent on weaving these possibilities regarding the burial.

17 Some of these would include Barry W. Henault, “Empty Tomb or Empty Argument: A Failure of Nerve in Recent Studies of Mark 16?,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 15, no. 2 (1986): 184; Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 199, 215 (see chap. 15, n. 89); Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 263–66. Lowder agrees with Craig in rejecting the hypothesis that Jesus was never buried, but he disagrees in holding that Jesus received a dishonorable burial. When discussing the implausibility of nonburial, Lowder writes that since the Romans crucified Jesus because of a political crime, “and if the Jews believed that Jesus had been crucified for an act that did not violate divine law, then there is historical precedent for believing they would have given Jesus an honorable burial. This is all moot, however, given that the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy” (265). On Lowder’s view, simply being executed and apparently even being crucified was not enough in itself to receive a dishonorable burial.

18 For instance, almost foreshadowing various options in the twentieth century and later, French liberal scholar Alfred Loisy thought that Jesus died by crucifixion. However, the Roman soldiers most likely simply tossed Jesus’s dead body into a trench or common grave that was designated for criminals and the like, “perhaps after giving a finishing blow to the half-dead sufferer.” For Loisy, Joseph of Arimathea’s alleged burial was a “legend,” and the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb were all just “a fiction.” Alfred Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion, trans. L. P. Jacks (London: Allen and Unwin, 1948), 90.

19 One wonders when studying the literature on this subject if a fair amount of interest, and this slight upturn in those who now take the common burial of Jesus and related positions in recent years, is due to the influence of John Dominic Crossan’s writings.

20 As Ehrman acknowledges concerning Jesus’s burial as well as the empty tomb: “There are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. . . . The accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it’s relatively reliable that that’s what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. And so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb.” Bart Ehrman, “Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus,” in From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Audio Lecture, The Teaching Company, 2003.

21 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 164–65, 184–86 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

22 Ehrman, 157.

23 Ehrman, 163. Ehrman’s comments on the question of the empty tomb will be addressed in that chapter.

24 Ehrman, 152.

25 Ehrman, 152.

26 Ehrman, 153.

27 Ehrman, 154–55. Allison mentions this text in Acts 13 in his discussion too, though saying very little about it; see Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 362–63. Ehrman’s first point here will be addressed below.

28 Of course, Paul added his own name to the formula in 15:8. Yet in the same verse, Paul also acknowledges that he was late to the celebration, and he specifically notes that himself. It remains that we are speaking about the original creedal text here, where both the names of Paul and John are absent in spite of both of them being present in that second formative meeting in Gal 2:1–10. Again, there is no way Joseph of Arimathea should be included in this austere company. This is not a large issue whatsoever.

29 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 72 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

30 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 154–55. Ehrman makes several assertions, concluding: “That leaves only one choice . . . the Jewish authorities themselves.” But Joseph of Arimathea is never mentioned once in the intervening discussion. Why is he not a candidate? Hence, Ehrman’s tenuous question is turned into an assertion in favor of his position.

31 Ehrman, New Testament, 8 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

32 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 141–42, 156–64.

33 As G. H. C. Macgregor thinks in “Exegesis of Acts,” in The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), 9:179. Ehrman is at least open to this interpretation too; see How Jesus Became God, 161, 163.

34 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 156–61; the quotation is found on 160.

35 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 73.

36 Evans, 74.

37 Examples include Livy’s History, written about 24 BC (5.13.8); Egyptian prefect Septimius Vegetus, writing approximately AD 85 (Papyrus Florence 61, lines 59–60, 61); Pliny the Younger, approximately AD 118 (Ep. 10.31); Josephus around AD 94 (Life 75), the Judean procurator Albinus (r. 62–64) plus other examples from Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.73, 211; J.W. 2.220; Ant. 18.55–59, 20.215); and Philo about AD 40–45 (Embassy 300).

38 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 74.

39 Josephus and Jehohanan are both listed under Roman sources because the former became a Roman court historian and the latter, as a victim of crucifixion, would point best to a Roman death with Jewish permission to bury, as seen in the Roman law Digesta. This would also be confirmed if the death came in AD 6–66, since the Jews did not have permission and were not allowed to administer capital punishment during the rulership of the Roman governors. See Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 82.

40 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 161–63.

41 Ehrman, 157.

42 Ehrman, 162.

43 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 78–79.

44 Mark 15:2–5; cf. John 18:35–38; 19:8–11, esp. v. 8.

45 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 161, 163.

46 Ehrman, 163–64.

47 Rather incredibly, as with Alfred Loisy above, there were also some nineteenth-century German liberal forerunners of the reburial views too. Oskar Holtzmann in his Das Leben Jesu (1901) thought it was possible that Jesus’s disciples carried his dead body back to Galilee, but then thought better of this option. Holtzmann then concludes that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus, then moved Jesus’s body after the Sabbath ended due to it being inappropriate for a crucified man’s body to be buried along with other family members. Holtzmann, The Life of Jesus, trans. J. T. Bealby and Maurice A. Canney (London: Black, 1904), 499. Arnold Meyer similarly thought that Joseph used his tomb as a temporary burial location, always intending for Jesus to be moved soon afterwards. The initial move was made out of respect for Jewish burial laws, but Joseph was not a disciple of Jesus according to Meyer. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi: Die Berichte über Auferstehung, Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten (Tübingen: Mohr, 1905), 118. The distinguished Jewish critical scholar Joseph Klausner held a position very similar to Holtzmann’s, even featuring similar wording. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 357 (see chap. 6, n. 60). Though a little further removed from these more closely related ideas, David Strauss still envisioned an alternate burial story. The wording (translation?) is somewhat difficult, but Jesus’s body was not interred in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, but rather in a tomb somewhat close by and it was probably not moved after that. However, Strauss still appears to allow a little room for the traditional view, concluding that it is impossible to know for certain. Strauss, Life of Jesus, 704–5 (see chap. 10, n. 181).

48 James Tabor is certainly among those who have written much about the possibility of such a set of events. See Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb,” Society of Biblical Literature Forum 6, no. 1, March 2007, https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=651. Lowder has argued for this scenario as well, though in a way quite removed from Tabor’s approach (at least by not employing the Talpiot Tomb), while concluding, “I believe that the relocation hypothesis has a high final probability”! Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 268–70, 272–74.

49 Lowder, 274.

50 We will be responding here briefly to Lowder’s angle plus the “non-Talpiot Tomb” portion of Tabor’s thesis, the latter of which is being treated elsewhere. For now, I will note that James Tabor is a friend of mine. But at times he seems nearly to be alone as a scholar who supports the Talpiot Tomb hypothesis in a story that has seemed, on the part of others, to be accompanied by a made-for-television sort of hoopla (in spite of James’s attempts to keep the ship upright). The response from across the scholarly spectrum has been almost totally negative. Jewish burial expert Jodi Magness proclaims that the Talpiot thesis “contradicts” the New Testament data and “the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus” and is “also inconsistent with all the available information—historical and archaeological”—that we have concerning Jewish burial. She concludes even more strongly, “It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.” Magness, “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?,” Biblical Archaeology Society, March 5, 2007, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/has-the-tomb-of-jesus-been-discovered/. Steven Fine, Jewish history professor at Yeshiva University, referring to the bombastic blast in the news regarding the possible discovery of Jesus’s burial tomb, commented, “The scholarly world . . . is being plummeted on an almost monthly basis . . . by either non-academics or lone academics that fly in the face of the kinds of careful scholarly research for which our discipline prides itself.” Fine, “Concerning the Jesus Family Tomb,” SBL Forum (March 2007): n.p., https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=655. Responding to questions regarding the television depiction of the Talpiot Tomb for a Jerusalem Post online interview, Amos Kloner retorted, “Give me scientific evidence, and I’ll grapple with it. But this is manufactured.” Kloner, quoted in David Horovitz, “Kloner: A Great Story, but Nonsense,” Jerusalem Post, February 27, 2007, https://www.jpost.com/israel/kloner-a-great-story-but-nonsense. Regarding the “Princeton Symposium” in Jerusalem, held the year after much of the original Talpiot Tomb news, prominent Jewish scholar and professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford University Geza Vermes reported briefly for the Biblical Archaeology Review, saying that the Talpiot Tomb matter turned out to be “not just unconvincing but insignificant” and that it “must remain closed.” See Vermes, “No Deep Divisions: ‘Jesus Tomb’ Controversy Erupts—Again,” Biblical Archaeology Review (January 25, 2008), https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/no-deep-divisions/. For more details, synopses, and dozens of critiques, see Habermas, Secret of the Talpiot Tomb (see chap. 13, n. 79). It is absolutely crucial to observe here that the Talpiot Tomb conclusions are not mistaken just because major authorities think they are, for authorities can clearly be mistaken. But the key is because the facts dictate that the Talpiot Tomb views are wrong, as the comments above by Magness and Fine make clear.

51 Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 274.

52 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 218–23, 228–30, 310 (see chap. 1, n. 18); cf. Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 274.

53 Lowder, 273. Leslie Houlden states that the stolen body theory “must have dominated the scene” in Matthew’s area in order for him to spend so much time refuting it; see Houlden, “The Resurrection and Christianity,” Theology 99 (1996): 203. Even Morton Smith admits the Jews indeed claimed that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus; Jesus the Magician, esp. 66, also 54–55, 61 (see chap. 15, n. 73).

54 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 52 (see chap. 1, n. 41).

55 Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth.”

56 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 228, 233–35, for examples; also Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 270, 274, for instances.

57 At this point, it would be entirely fair for the critical scholar to remark that conservatives must be wearing blinders, for they do exactly the same thing in the same situations. But there often tends to be an incredible difference in the overall way these cases proceed on each side, and it is far too often overlooked. Having participated in these situations dozens of times and written about them many more times than that over several decades, I am always amazed how many clear and concise reasons are usually produced by these conservative scholars in favor of their theses, while far fewer, if any, reasons are usually produced by the liberal scholar. Further, many of the reasons given by the latter are often of a much “softer” nature, relying on far more subjective arguments. This is arguably my own perception, but reviews of dialogues are available as well.

Of course, this is not always the case, and liberals win debates too. But I have little doubt that this situation just described above would be borne out by a careful investigation. In fact, instead of quoting theists, prominent atheist philosopher Quentin Smith makes the point quite well on behalf of Christian philosophers, as already remarked. After making several relevant comments for our discussion (though on a different topic and from a different angle), he explains the current situation in philosophy (in 2001). After addressing a recent “coup” in the philosophical world involving surging theistic philosophers, Smith states: “If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion (i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion, and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion, the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that ‘no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,’ although I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate. God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.” Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo 4, no. 2 (2001): 195–215.

Smith explains further in this same article that many naturalists (possibly even the majority?) have fallen behind and are simply not keeping up with the best theistic arguments. He even comments that the major naturalists are continuing to research their own philosophical interests without recognizing that their arguments may already have been defeated!

In this chapter on the burial of Jesus it may appear that this is a comparable phenomenon in action from critical scholars. At the end of the day, many independent arguments for the traditional burial of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels could be given, as done below. So when skeptics come back with their own responses, are they of similar weight and number? Or are there possibly other reasons here, especially when views change on crucial matters?

Granted, liberals also respond that conservatives are likewise prejudiced in their preference for overall writings and individual texts that agree with them. And this is admittedly human on all sides. But if a major atheist scholar such as Quentin Smith is correct that theists are producing the most and the best responses on the existence of God, for example, this should be a concern to unbelieving scholars.

58 Even when addressing the mythicists on the subject of the historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman can be rather ruthless and hilarious on occasion, as when he refers to those critics who like to sidestep evidence. Ehrman points out on several occasions that some of these critics seem to have a tendency to sweep away or ignore inconvenient data. He refers to this practice as the “principle of convenience” (118) or the “scholarship of convenience” (133). Ehrman explains it this way: “If historical evidence proves inconvenient to one’s views, then simply claim that the evidence does not exist, and suddenly you’re right.” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, also 55, 59, 118, 132–33, 191, 253 (see chap. 2, n. 15). We wish to be very clear that this does not actually apply directly to either Tabor and Lowder here, who are much more respectful of the evidence. However, we wish to point out that constant avoiding of a much more heavily evidenced position in favor of one with little or no evidence fails to refute the other position.

59 The objection that Jesus’s followers did not know the body had been moved will be treated below.

60 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354; cf. Johnson, Living Jesus, 132 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

61 Tabor and Lowder are both in agreement that Joseph and whoever helped him rebury Jesus’s dead body did not keep the secret to themselves. So Jesus’s disciples, as well as his family and others, knew his body had been moved; they may even have done the moving themselves. See Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 234–35; cf. Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 272–73. Even if there had been an initial effort to keep the second burial a secret, the number of people involved and their spouses, plus those to whom the news leaked out, would ensure a very short silence, especially in the case of such a momentous personage. But this simply intensifies the problem above. After some thirty to sixty-five years, at any rate, it would hardly be a secret! So how do the Gospel writers and their sources still portray only the first burial by Joseph with no knowledge of a subsequent burial after all these decades?

62 Which once again need not be at all synonymous with the guard posted in front of the tomb in Matthew.

63 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 224.

64 Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 271.

65 Tabor presents a photo with a cutaway of such a tomb in Jesus Dynasty, 9.

66 Jesus could have been raised from any tomb, be it first or second, open or closed, or located anywhere else for this matter. Thus, the issue of his burial does not impede his resurrection appearances one way or another.

67 Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1998), 46–64; Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 45–48 (see chap. 13, n. 41).

68 Interestingly enough, Brown also mentions briefly how Matthew divides the guard account similarly into two sections in Death of the Messiah, 2:1287 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Later, Brown considers the pros and cons of this material originally having been a single account of the guards without being interspersed around the women coming to the tomb. Here is one of those interesting sidelights, but on which very little stands or falls: Brown’s thoughts also involve and depend on a somewhat questionable and frankly rather subjective reasoning structure for the makeup of Matthew’s Gospel (2:1301–4). But as we just mentioned above, this will be one of many questions that are left for others to decide and solve.

69 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1288–89, including note 6 as an example of the confusion in the Gospel of Peter.

70 Mark 14:28 (cf. Matt 26:32) is just one of several of Jesus’s resurrection predictions. According to Matthew, these previous predictions by Jesus were certainly tied into requesting the guard of Pilate (Matt 27:63–64) and hence to this entire guard story.

71 For example, Richard Carrier mentions a number of these objections (but not all of them) to the account of the guards. See Carrier, “The Plausibility of Theft,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 358.

72 This is the chief reason given for William Lane Craig’s favoring Jewish guards; see “Guard at the Tomb,” 277 (see chap. 9, n. 51). Yet, it would seem fairly straightforward to explain why Roman guards might go back to the Jewish leaders since, after all, these men were “on loan” to them. They did not wish to face Pilate right then! It would seem far more difficult and out of place to explain why the Jewish leaders would need to ask Pilate’s permission to use their own temple guards! Further, why would these leaders have to “satisfy” Pilate later?

73 Robert Mounce, Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 262. Greek specialist A. T. Robertson agrees with Mounce: “present imperative, a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police.” See “The Gospel according to Matthew,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 1:239; cf. Craig S. Keener, Matthew, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 1:396n398. Another New Testament scholar, Sherman E. Johnson, remarks that the guard at the tomb “might be Jewish, but is probably Roman, as in the Gospel of Peter.” See Johnson, “Exegesis of Matthew,” in The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1951), 7:614.

74 Twelftree places all three of the episodes of Jesus raising the dead in his category of “stories [that] can be judged with high confidence to reflect an event or events most likely in the life of the historical Jesus.” Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

75 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

76 Gos. Pet. 8:29–34, text from The Apocryphal New Testament (see chap. 9, n. 101).

77 See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.12, though there is some question on the quoted texts themselves as to whether they were from the same source as what is identified as the Gospel of Peter today.

78 Some sample dating of the Gospel of Peter and its potential sources indicates wide variation, usually (but not always) based along liberal-conservative lines: John Dominic Crossan takes one of the more radical views in linking at least portions of the Gospel of Peter to the first century even before the Gospels. See Crossan, Historical Jesus, esp. 462–65, also 433–34 (see chap. 6, n. 44). Helmut Koester makes some similar moves to Crossan in his Introduction to the New Testament, 2:161–62 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Though very skeptical himself, Bart D. Ehrman prefers a date of AD 120 for the Gospel of Peter in Did Jesus Exist?, 163, and in New Testament, 44. Brown extends the dating somewhat, finding justification for a time somewhere within the first half of the second century; see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1343. A few of the most prominent New Testament scholars hold the more common date of the mid-second century and conclude that this source most likely knew or even used the canonical Gospels. These scholars include John P. Meier in Marginal Jew, 3:79, 121; Luke Timothy Johnson, Real Jesus, 47–48, 138 (see chap. 5, n. 49); and Darrell L. Bock, Missing Gospels, 78–79, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Mincing no words, Johnson critiques the ultra-early view for the Gospel of Peter, addressing Crossan specifically: “The reader begins to suspect that such textual prestidigitation must stem from a commitment to consider any source outside the canon as more reliable than a source inside the canon, and that something more than a desire for sober historical reconstruction is at work” (47–48).

79 James Charlesworth, “Series Editor’s Preface,” in Jeremiah J. Johnston, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), xvii. Charlesworth adds that “many scholars do not agree” with Crossan’s view that one or more passages in the Gospel of Peter are independent of the canonical Gospels (xvii). Charlesworth notes further that at least Gos. Pet. 14:59–60 is dependent on John 21 (xviii). N. T. Wright also mentions that Crossan is virtually alone (with a few exceptions) in many of his views on the Gospel of Peter; see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 593, 594n13, 634 (see chap. 6, n. 44). For a brief survey on some of these views on Peter, see 592–96.

80 The historical, textual, and other issues involved in Jesus’s predictions, both pro and con, will be treated in a later chapter.

81 William Lane Craig suggests that this objection regarding the different stances in Matthew between the knowledge and outlook of the Jewish elders and Pharisees versus that of the disciples amounts to an argument from silence, since there is no explanation how or where the Jewish leaders had learned of Jesus’s resurrection predictions. See Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 274. However, while it may be difficult to determine precisely when, where, and how many times the leaders may have heard Jesus’s teaching on this subject, it would seem that Matt 12:38–42 and 16:1–4 (from the Q source, though the extent of the saying varies) could certainly provide enough information for the discussion here, even if it only served to make the Jewish leaders angry. After all, anger alone could do as much or even more than belief could in motivating the leaders to make doubly sure that this Jesus was dead in the first place to ensure nothing would happen to Jesus’s deceased body that could be proclaimed in any sense as a resurrection. (Incidentally, Marcus Borg and others list the Q saying here as Q41 in Borg, Powelson, and Riegert, Lost Gospel Q, 75 [see chap. 8, n. 25]).

82 For instance, Brown still seems to be uncomfortable with this objection in Death of the Messiah, 2:1311–12.

83 Brown, 2:1311.

84 Even if it were conceded that, from the very beginning, Matthew had an apologetic interest in telling the story of the guards at the tomb, does that necessarily falsify any portion of the story? Rather, it is simply the case that people often relate stories and data with which they have a vested interest. That interest could even make their search all the more careful, detailed, and fruitful, as when Paul took a trip to Jerusalem just a very few years after his conversion (Gal 1:18–20), then again fourteen years after that (Gal 2:1–10) to meet, check out, and research (historēsai, Gal 1:18) the truth of the gospel message with those who had been apostolic eyewitnesses before him. The point is not only that such interest does not necessarily destroy either the research or the message itself, but that it often enhances the study, as in Paul’s careful research on the very center of the Christian message (cf. 1 Cor 15:11).

85 This is yet another hint in the direction of our thesis developed above, that the Matthean motivation for the Jewish elders to approach Pilate was more than their clearly understanding Jesus’s prophecy that he would rise again from the dead after his crucifixion. Waiting until the next day to ask their question argues that it was neither the first concern on their minds nor their greatest fear that Jesus would indeed actually rise from the dead.

86 Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 353 (see chap. 16, n. 71).

87 For critics, as regularly charged, Matthew was rather free to roam, both to invent and develop a really juicy tale. So why did he not precisely do that? Sure, the young man inside the tomb in Mark 16:5 is now clearly identified as an angel in Matt 28:2, 5. But even critical scholars regularly concede that Mark’s young man is meant by the author to be an angel, so that hardly expresses much freedom, even keeping just the lone supernatural “invader from heaven.” Could Matthew not have done a much better job here in telling his story? Why not employ five or more angels (or perhaps even an entire cohort), all holding swords, with menacing demeanors? Why did the guards not remain anyway after the angel appeared—perhaps hiding nearby—watching until the women arrived? Then they could have provided very valuable testimony from unbelievers. True, critics may contend that authors have different ideas about how to spin a tale, but that suggestion cuts both ways. There is just no clear aspect to Matthew’s overall spinning, along with some rather obvious loopholes in the process. Sure, Jesus does appear, but as a regular man who is held by the feet (Matt 28:9). There’s simply not much of a tall tale to be seen here. The claimed apologetic element, plus any semblance of tall tales akin to the Gospel of Peter, appears to fizzle at least a bit!

88 For one such recent critique, see Jeremiah J. Johnston, “The Gospel of Peter: The Importance of a North African Discovery,” Sapientia Logos 3, no. 2 (2010): 183–215. Cf. Johnston’s much more detailed volume Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, esp. chaps. 6–7.

89 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163; cf. 290–91.

90 Depending on which time references the Gospel of Peter is using, as noted above by Brown. But if it is deemed to be the case on historical and textual grounds that these men came to Pilate on Friday evening according to Peter, then it might be said that this allows them to improve on the timing of Matthew’s Saturday visit.

91 Johnston finds the Gospel of Peter’s reference to the “exceedingly tall” Jesus who emerges (with help) from the tomb as rather typical of the second-century prevalence of polymorphic Christology, including tall figures of Jesus such as found in the Shepard of Hermas and elsewhere; see Johnston, Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, 188–89.

92 In commenting on the passages in Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15, Johnston asserts that the key New Testament writings exhibit “modest” apologetic interest when compared to extracanonical works from the second century, such as the Gospel of the Nazarenes (AD 120–140?) and other writings which also sometimes rather wildly embellish the account of the guards at the tomb, such as in multiplying the number and prowess of the soldiers. See Johnston, Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, 184–87.

93 Of course, finding reliable data that Jesus predicted his resurrection ahead of time would be a huge boon to resurrection studies rather than a stumbling block. On the historicity of these predictions, see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

94 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

95 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 324, 328–29 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

96 This last point seems particularly to bear additional evaluation in light of the clear and repeated practices of some additional, nondating considerations placed prominently on the table in current discussions, such as the obvious and repeated efforts of more radical scholars to date later writings decades and even more to much earlier dates than their colleagues seemingly to provide alternative portraits of Jesus, to compete with the orthodox descriptions in the earliest texts. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson especially charges Jesus Seminar members with early dating almost any writing in an attempt to compete with canonical ones; see Johnson, Real Jesus, e.g., 22. Skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman also charges that it is not contextually credible to place radical gnostic sayings on the lips of Jesus. Further, later gnostic compositions almost certainly do not go back to these first-century settings. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 288–90.

97 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 637, cf. 403–4, 637, also 633–36, 638–39 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

98 Wright, 636–40.

99 Kankaanniemi, Guards of the Tomb (see chap. 9, n. 51) for a list of the nonhistorical arguments against Matthew’s account (6–19) along with indications that Matthew was not the original source of the account (95–106).

100 Kankaanniemi, 255–56, 261, for a list of these conclusions.

101 Kankaanniemi, 259–62, for the list.

102 Kankaanniemi, 99, cf. also 97. Other potential Greek terms in the story of the guards that may also be from an earlier account are assessed on 98–105.

103 Interestingly enough, by far the most common objection raised against Christianity down through the centuries, even in ancient times, is that there are many contradictions and other discrepancies in the canonical Gospel accounts and often in the resurrection narratives themselves. Johnston shows this even in the writings of the early antagonists of Christianity, such as Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and Trypho, where objections concerned issues such as the ones being discussed here with regard to the tomb guards in Matthew’s Gospel. See the many details in Johnston, Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, 137–53. See also Jeremy Johnston, “How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story,” The City 9, no. 1 (2016): 95–108; and Russ Dudrey, “What the Writers Should Have Done Better: A Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Based on Ancient Criticisms of the Resurrection Reports,” Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (2000): 55–78.

It even seems as if in some of these dialogues, such as the ones with Trypho or Celsus in particular, Christian apologists like Justin Martyr and Origen respectively, craft their polemics to counter the exact discrepancies that the skeptics were leveling.

104 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 290–91.

105 While viewing the issue from a slightly different perspective, Craig opts to leave the matter as “an open question” rather than favoring either account. Acknowledging the existence of decent arguments for both views, Craig seems to give the impression that the matter is basically a draw, so we should remain open; see Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 279. In addition to the likelihood of Matthew’s early source behind the guard story, we also relied largely on the loose ends that Matthew left, such as the Saturday approach to Pilate, without informing his readers as to whether Jesus’s body was still inside the tomb, thus militating against Matthew having ulterior apologetic motives.

106 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 637.

107 Wright, 710.

108 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1240.

109 Brown, 2:1229, 1238–40. Brown points to several indications of a potential pre-Gospel burial account with regard to Joseph, such as the time element of the burial suggesting a pre-Markan tradition, including an earlier “Semitic-speaking stage in Gospel formation,” as well as the Gospels using terms like paraskeuē a little differently in the same book, suggesting that the differences are due to the possible specifications and emphases that were employed by more than one prior source.

110 Brown includes a very helpful appendix containing the exceptionally detailed, previously published report of New Testament scholar Marion L. Soards on the nature of a pre-Markan tradition that Mark apparently utilized in the composition of his Gospel. Soards indicates the close critical scholarly agreement regarding the likelihood that there was such a source behind Mark 15:42–47 with respect to Joseph of Arimathea’s burial. See Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1516–17 (see chap. 4, n. 40). Soards states, “We may safely conclude that Mark uses a source in writing his PN [Passion Narrative]” (2:1523).

111 William Lane Craig, “Closing Response,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 163–74. The quotation is on 167n7. A similar though more recent response can be found in William Lane Craig’s text Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 361–64. In this volume, Craig argues that the pre-Markan source probably extends beyond Jesus’s burial to the account of the empty tomb due to similar “grammatical and linguistic ties” (364). Of course, this may very well have been the case, but the question ought also be considered as to whether Mark could have been writing carefully to preserve continuity as much as possible between his source(s) and his own words. Also in the later text here, Craig mentions the Gospel of Peter as another independent source for Jesus’s burial, presumably without considering this second-century writing to be a real valuable addition to the equation, though it is worth mentioning nonetheless (363).

112 O’Collins and Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?,” Biblica 75 (1994): 236–38.

113 O’Collins and Kendall, 238–39. Allison comments helpfully: “To biblicize is not necessarily to invent.” Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 124 (see chap. 2, n. 15)

114 O’Collins and Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?,” 239–41.

115 Küng, Eternal Life?, 95 (see excursus 2, n. 123).

116 It should be noted that although there is a debate regarding whether or not Jesus received an “honorable” or “dishonorable” burial, we will not be attempting to settle that issue in this chapter.

117 This would include at least Mark, John, and either M or L (possibly even both).

118 Max Wilcox provides a list of some of the Semitisms in the Acts sermon summaries in Semitisms of Acts, 171–77, esp. 171 and 177 (see chap. 9, n. 12). Similarly, many relevant comments are made by C. H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–31 (see chap. 2, n. 22), esp. verse 22. Cf. also Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 29 (see chap. 8, n. 70), among many other relevant texts and discussions.

119 In volume 2, which examines the various possibilities of Jesus’s dead body being stolen by perpetrators other than his own disciples (what we term “Fraud 2”), we will provide even more details on this topic of Jesus Christ’s traditional burial.

120 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, who specifies these particular texts in 109–13, esp. 112–13, 232, 261–63, cf. similarly 140–41, 172.

121 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47).

122 In a private, thus far unpublished study of dozens of New Testament scholars evenly divided between “left-” and “right-” leaning researchers, Licona found that over 70 percent preferred a composition date for the Gospel of Mark of earlier than AD 70.

123 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, cf. 56, 140–41, 171, 290–91.

124 Richard Bauckham, “The Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2003): 51.

125 Bauckham, 51; cf. 52. Dunn adds, “Similarly the presence of women at the cross and their involvement in Jesus’ burial can be attributed more plausibly to early oral memory than to creative story telling.” See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782–83 (see chap. 1, n. 3).

126 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 353.

127 Allison, 352–63.

128 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 243 (see chap. 1, n. 25); William Lane Craig dates this pre-Markan testimony, at the latest, to AD 37. See his essay “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 182–83, 190–91 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

129 Allison provides a helpful list of Jewish sources that refer to Deut 21:22–23 as instructive, such as Philo (Spec. 3.151–152; Flacc. 82–85); (Josephus, J.W. 4.317; Ant. 4.265); 11Q19 64:10–13; m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6; Semahot 2:11; Tob. 1:17–18. See Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 360–61. For some of the Roman sources, see the discussion in the beginning of this chapter regarding Evans’s response to Ehrman.

130 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 361.

131 Carrier, “Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” 371. Others have similarly recognized that the Romans would have allowed the Jews to bury the dead, even crucified victims: Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 110–13, 124, 130–35; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–49 (see chap. 13, n. 35); Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

132 Dunn writes, “There are some reports of permission being given for a victim to be taken down ahead of normal practice [citing Josephus]; and the skeletal remains of a crucified man discovered at Giv’at ha-Mivtar were buried in a family tomb.” See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

133 There are also multiply attested reports of various levels of involvement from the Jewish leadership both before (Mark 15:3, 11; Matt 27:12, 20; Luke 23:4, 10, 13; John 18:28–31, 38–40; 19:6–7, 12, 15–16), during (Mark 15:31; Matt 27:41; Luke 23:35; John 19:21–22; 31), and even after Jesus’s crucifixion (Matt 27:62–66), even in their relation with Joseph of Arimathea and his burial, as depicted in all four Gospels (Mark 15:42–46; Matt 27:57–60; Luke 23:50–54; John 19:38–42).

134 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354.

135 Allison, 362.

136 The women were reportedly present at the crucifixion: Mark 15:40–41; Matt 27:55–56; Luke 23:53; John 19:25–27 (plus John) and at the burial: Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:55–56.

137 Mark 16:1–8; Matt 28:1–7; Luke 24:1–8; John 20:1–17.

138 Quite notably, Matthew’s secondary comment here that the Jewish leaders spread the story that Jesus’s disciples stole his body is independent of the story (largely dismissed by critical scholars) that guards were posted in front of Jesus’s tomb. In fact, in a strange reversal, those critical scholars who think the guard account was invented presumably could well conclude that a true and prior rumor spread by the Jews regarding the disciples stealing Jesus’s body potentially could have developed into the guard account in this Gospel!

139 Of course, some may think that the report of the empty tomb here is simply an invention of the early Christians. We will address this below. Further, the assertion is question begging if it merely bases such a notion on possibilities without being demonstrated.

140 Another potential indication in favor of the traditional burial of Jesus is the Nazareth Decree, which is possibly a first-century marble slab that warns that grave robbing is punishable by death, which may be a response both to the Jewish charges as well as the reports of Jesus’s resurrection. Note that recent research may indicate that this artifact could actually have originated in the first-century BC during the reign of Augustus. Regardless, this inscription mentions the sealing of burial tombs during Roman times, which is a rare reference to a similar practice in Matt 27:66. Some also think that the Shroud of Turin is at least evidence of an individual burial for a crucifixion victim, even if it is not Jesus’s burial cloth.

141 Of Allison’s eleven responses to Crossan’s common grave theses, seven of them were not mentioned above: Allison thinks it unlikely that Mark would have merely invented the person of Joseph of Arimathea, since this does “not seem to be standard fare either in Mark or his tradition” (355). Mark’s story of Joseph contains no obvious legendary motifs or what Crossan terms “prophecy historicized” (356). Luke sees no tension between the comment in Acts 13:29 that some say hints of a burial of Jesus by the Jewish leaders (356–57). Allison thinks Crossan’s case for dating portions of the Gospel of Peter before Mark’s Gospel “is not compelling” (358). There is no serious evidence to speak of that Jesus’s body was left on the cross or denied a burial such as Joseph’s (359). To the contrary, there is every reason to think Jesus would have been buried, as is normal among Jews (359–60). The fact that the crucifixion victim Jehohanan was buried privately attests to this last point (361). Allison also finds Gerd Lüdemann’s comment favoring Jesus’s burial in a common cemetery for criminals to be mistaken (363). Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 352–63.

142 See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781. Dunn then provides five reasons in favor of this conclusion (782–83).

143 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354; cf. 250.

144 Davis, Risen Indeed, 82 (see chap. 1, n. 16).

145 Cf. Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 87–88; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 156–64; Evans, “Burial Traditions,” esp. 173–74.

146 In addition to some of the texts already mentioned above, especially those from Roman sources, many ancient texts from a very wide variety of traditions are usually cited to confirm this point, such as Deut 21:22–23; Tob. 1:17–18; Herodotus 7.194; Josephus, J.W. 4.1317 (Niese numbers) and Ant. 4.265; m. Yevamot 14:4c; 16:3; m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6; Semahot 2:1; Palestinian Talmud 5; Iamblichus, Bab. 2, 21; Philo, Flacc. 83–85; as well as the privately reburied bones from a first-century ossuary of a crucifixion victim named Jehohanan.

147 Such as Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–50 (see chap. 13, n. 35); Carrier, “Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” 376–77; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 264; Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” 394 (see chap. 9, n. 155).

148 We saw above that this was acknowledged freely even by Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 218–23, 228–30, 310; cf. Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; and Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 274. My 2001 article that presented an overview of the majority of naturalistic alternative theses on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as held by skeptical scholars at that time listed only a very few others not mentioned in this essay who supported alternate notions of Jesus’s burial. See Habermas, “Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses,” 179–96, esp. 191–92 (see chap. 4, n. 17).

149 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 356.

17

The Last Four Known Facts

Earlier in this lengthy study it was pointed out that many recent critical scholars over the past few decades began their forays into “Jesus studies” by setting forth lists of data that were largely admitted as historical events by their peers. Seldom were debates ever initiated by any of these counts, due to the general and well-evidenced nature of the facts. Such endeavors were probably attempted to establish accredited data as a common ground and a convenient way to begin research without having to relay groundwork and to avoid much controversy.

One incredible element that largely characterized these ventures was the diversity of the views held by scholars. These nearly unanimous historical verdicts were represented and held by a very wide cross section of both scholars and relevant disciplines. As to their personal beliefs, the individual researchers included atheists, agnostics, other skeptics, adherents to non-Christian religions and belief systems, as well as moderate and conservative scholars. Regarding their specific fields of study, these academics were New Testament theologians, historians, classicists, archaeologists, philosophers, and practitioners of other religions. Each of these scholars was a specialist, almost always with terminal degrees in their respective fields, and often possessing relevant publications as well.

The “Known Facts” and the “Minimal Facts”

Earlier in this study, we produced a list of a dozen facts concerning the end of Jesus’s life. Half of these were then singled out for special attention.1 These twelve facts, and especially the shorter list of six taken from them, are recognized as historical by virtually all critical scholars who have studied this material. The chief reason for this widespread scholarly acceptance is the strong data that stand behind and support each of these details.2 Again, the events chosen all occurred at the end of Jesus’s life and are conceded as historical by virtually all critical scholars who have addressed these data, regardless of their overall theological positions.

The longer list of some dozen events has variously been called the “known” or “accepted” historical facts. The shorter list has been designated as the “minimal historical facts.” This latter reduced list functions basically as a “lowest common denominator” and is capable of building a strong case for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances by itself, as supported by the available data that stand behind each of these six occurrences. In spite of commentators sometimes confusing the two lists, only the briefer one comprises “minimal facts.”3

To be sure, New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, classicists, archaeologists, and other scholars of various relevant disciplines, persuasions, and schools of thought of course still differ on many items, sometimes even widely so. One example concerns the amount of historical content contained in the Gospels and other early material. Yet, as pointed out here, these broader differences do not impede the basic agreement or general consensus that emerges regarding a select number of incidents during the last days of Jesus’s life, such as enjoyed by the minimal facts method.

It should be repeated once again that none of this scholarly agreement depends on particular persuasions pertaining to the general reliability of the Gospels or any other canonical texts. These minimal historical facts being spoken of here follow almost totally from the seven “authentic” Pauline Epistles, plus the data derived from early creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, along with the application of the historical textual criteria with a very few additionally outstanding considerations along the way. But neither standard reliability considerations nor arguments for the inspiration of Scripture or anything like this come into play toward establishing any of these particular historical facts.

Actually, these minimal facts are derived just fine, even superlatively so, when operating with an unreliable New Testament, such as with a recognized list of historical facts provided by potential atheist, agnostic, self-identified non-Christian scholars, or otherwise skeptical commentators who do not recognize either the inspiration or even the reliability of the canonical writings. As explained on many occasions over the years,4 these groups of individuals are often the very best researchers to work with, and for more than one reason.

Therefore, as also mentioned many other times, repeated identifications of these academics in the contexts of this study as atheists, agnostics, non-Christian commentators, or skeptics are definitely not derogatory terms but are meant to note that even those with no faith-based reasons for admitting the existence of particular historical facts or New Testament texts, especially when they do so in the strongest terms, is a likely indication that there is probably some solid ground for accepting their judgments. Even so, these authors must still be scholars with terminal degrees, majoring in the appropriate disciplines as defined early in this study, with applicable areas of specialization and with accompanying publications.

Thus, a wide swath of critical scholars still generally recognize that there are a number of established historical facts from the end of Jesus’s life. Following are the dozen facts from earlier in this study, with just slight changes, acknowledged as historical by virtually all researchers who have investigated this area, regardless of the many differences in their other theological or philosophical tendencies, or in spite of their views of the New Testament, as long as the scholars being discussed fit the description provided above.5

1. Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.

2. Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb.6

3. Afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having their previous hope challenged.

4. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty very soon after his interment.7

5. The disciples reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.

6. The proclamation of the resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences.

7. These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of becoming willing to die for their belief.

8. The disciples’ initial reports, preaching, and teaching of these resurrection experiences took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried shortly before.

9. As the number of new converts to the Christian community grew and began to gather regularly at approximately this same time, the gatherings frequently featured meetings on the first day of the week for group study, prayer, and worship, traditionally commemorating the same day on which Jesus rose from the dead.

10. The gospel message centered on the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted, most likely after he believed that he also saw the risen Jesus.

12. Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

Now we need to unpack some of the ramifications here. In this list of twelve recognized historical facts, six of them have been designated in this study as the minimal facts. These lowest-common denominator events are the ones numbered 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12. The historicity of these six have been treated in great detail throughout this study. Two other occurrences from the longer list of the dozen “known” or “accepted” details—namely Jesus’s burial plus his empty tomb (2 and 4)—have also been defended in chapter-long treatments above. We will not be arguing further for these occasions here. But the remaining four events (3, 8, 9, and 10) will be the subject of the remainder of this chapter.

The Disillusionment and Despair of the Disciples following the Crucifixion

The Historical Evidence

Throughout this study of both the slightly longer listing of the “known” or “accepted facts” as well as the shorter list of “minimal facts” that were drawn out from that initial count, the effort has been made to begin the treatments by providing the historical and other data that establish the fact(s) in question. Only after the factual investigation was a tally provided that listed the critical scholars from a variety of different positions who affirmed the conclusion(s). As repeated often in this study, this order is due to the observation that by far the most important criterion here is that each of the facts be supported by a large array of credible material. We will now view some of the data on behalf of these facts of the disciples’ despair and angst, considerations that motivated the scholars below to make these moves in the first place.

(1) Given the unexpected arrest and trial of Jesus, along with the horrible process of the crucifixion of Jesus and its inevitable effect upon his disciples, especially when they apparently had other ideas about perhaps shortly being a part of the installment of God’s kingdom on earth, they must have been terribly shocked! From straightforward psychological principles, such dejection and depression from those who had followed Jesus for a few years at great potential cost to themselves would practically be demanded of this situation. There is no need to unpack these matters further, but the surrounding situation itself is a strong consideration pointing to this psychological outcome.

(2) Moreover, multiple independent (or chiefly independent) sources attest to this reaction in these early believers. Relevant details can be found in at least five sources—Matthew’s source M, Luke’s source L, John, the pseudo-Markan appendix, and the Gospel of Peter. In each of these sources with the exceptions of Matthew and the Gospel of Peter, this theme of the disciples’ despair and lack of belief is mentioned more than once.8 If Peter’s threefold denial just before the crucifixion is counted, Mark would be a sixth witness (Mark 14:66–72 and parallels, including John 18:15–17, 25–27). Additionally, Ignatius very soon after the close of the New Testament canon, in approximately AD 107–10, cites the situation in Luke 24:36–43 (Smyrn. 3) and Jesus’s offer to be touched along with his eating in front of his followers. While Ignatius does not mention the disciples’ doubt per se, this was precisely the reason in Luke’s text that drew Jesus’s offer of touching and eating in the first place (24:37–38). This is a respectable number of sources, especially to highlight such a negative theme.

(3) To follow on the heels of the comment just made, the criterion of embarrassment is on full display here repeatedly in more than one form. Peter and the male disciples abandoned Jesus in the garden during his initial capture, and they seem not to have been present at the most crucial times, such as Jesus’s public condemnation at the hands of Pontius Pilate, during the march to the crucifixion, or during the event itself (except for John’s comments). During these times it was reported that the disciples were scared and in hiding. True, as Jesus’s male followers, the men were more at risk than the women, but in general the men were basically not heard from between Jesus’s arrest and Peter and John checking out the women’s story of the empty tomb, even though it was mentioned that they failed to believe the report anyway! Even when Jesus appeared, he usually had to seek out the men.

On the other hand, according to Luke 23:27–31, the women were present during the march to the cross, at the crucifixion (though perhaps mostly at a distance), as well as overseeing the care of Jesus’s burial along with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, returning to the tomb by themselves on Sunday morning to complete the anointing of the body, and being the first ones to greet the risen Jesus.

Again, this is not at all to belittle the male disciples, but rather to point out that this well could be regarded as a double case of embarrassment at opposite ends of the spectrum. Not only were the men and later the chief leaders of the later church basically absent at almost every important juncture, but the women were very much present in most of these same places, both repeatedly and at key times. This is in spite of the low view of women witnesses in ancient Mediterranean cultures as a whole.

(4) The strictest criterion—termed dissimilarity or discontinuity—is also fulfilled here as well, at least in a slightly restricted but still useful sense. This rule is usually applied to the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels without being either anchored in Old Testament thought or repeated in the rest of the New Testament. The criterion can also be applied to Jesus’s deeds that are reported in the Gospels. Before his death, Jesus led his followers out to the Mount of Olives and predicted both the disciples’ deserting him as well as Peter’s threefold denial not long afterward (Mark 14:27–30; Matt 26:31–34; cf. Luke 22:34). This twofold prediction by Jesus that precipitated some of the actual events discussed here would certainly appear to be genuine.

While the Old Testament prophets were frequently ignored, mistreated, and even abused in various ways, there do not seem to be any direct parallels to what occurred in the case of Jesus and his followers. It would seem difficult to claim that the general scenario of the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus at his arrest, Peter’s denials, or their doubt and despair after Jesus’s death were inspired either by an Old Testament or Jewish context, especially across all four canonical Gospels along with a few other texts.9 However, it is likewise somewhat amazing that the theme of the disciples’ actions as well as their fear after Jesus’s crucifixion seems to be missing from the remainder of the New Testament, at least in this specific sense discussed here. The most likely indication here is that, as with the women who visited the tomb, these events were recorded because this is the way they happened.

This lack of mention in the remainder of the New Testament is especially noticeable in light of the open recognition of other negative and surprising failures mentioned in the later texts that also involved the apostles, like Judas’s failure and fall from grace in betraying Jesus (Acts 1:15–20), Paul’s role in approving of Stephen’s martyrdom (Acts 7:54–8:3; 22:20) as well as his agreeing to the persecutions and deaths of other believers (Acts 26:10; Gal 1:23), the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Gal 2:11–14, the heated disagreement between Paul and Barnabas over the accompaniment of John Mark in Acts 15:36–41, or even Paul’s self-criticism in light of his prior persecution of the Christian believers, where he identified himself as the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:8–9; cf. Acts 9:1–2; 22:4–5, 20; 26:10–11). Thus, both Jesus’s prior teachings here as well as the disciples’ fulfillment of Jesus’s prediction would point to the disciples’ fear, despair, and discouragement being a genuine part of the original story directly after the crucifixion.

(5) Given that the texts discussed here concern the Gospel material regarding the disciples’ doubt and despair after Jesus’s death, it may be a minority view among New Testament critical scholars that we have eyewitness testimony for these observations. Hence, we have saved this consideration for the end. But if Richard Bauckham is correct in his detailed and highly acclaimed research that the author of the Fourth Gospel was not the apostle John but an eyewitness nonetheless,10 as many other researchers agree to varying degrees,11 many important conclusions could result from such conclusions. Many scholars have preferred either Johannine authorship or the perhaps more nuanced view that John or other eyewitnesses were either the major source behind the Fourth Gospel or at least one of the main eyewitnesses who contributed testimony to its writing. Keener regards these additional positions as commonly held views,12 including strong positions held by some top-notch scholars that demand attention.13

The chief idea here is that these authorial and source assessments, in descending order, could indicate the presence of accurate eyewitness remembrances in the Fourth Gospel. Since it is known and held generally that each of the Gospel authors utilized at least one other important source,14 it is additionally conceivable that other eyewitness testimony could have existed behind the other Gospels too, providing the same sort of testimony.

If this is the case, then there might be a decent chance that events like Peter’s denials and the apparent disappearance of the disciples when Jesus was arrested was recalled by someone who was actually present on those occasions or at least heard it from eyewitnesses, especially when these were such major and embarrassing sets of circumstances concerning the disciples. Particularly since these men later became the leaders of the first church, it would seem that these are precisely the sort of details that would have been remembered. The same could be said given the multiple Gospel sources mentioned above pertaining to the possibility of firsthand knowledge of the disciples’ actions between the time of Jesus’s arrest and his resurrection appearances.15

In some of the very early Acts sermon summaries just mentioned, the apostles are repeatedly termed “witnesses” (martures) of these things (Acts 2:32; 3:15b; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31), with Jesus’s death and resurrection appearances always being at the very center of these proclamations. Granted, along with most commentators, this designation was probably Luke’s own chosen term that represented or characterized the point being made in the sermon summaries regarding those who had observed these events (cf. also Luke 24:48). Even so, this was the author’s representation that the crux of what had been passed on to him came from reliable witnesses, perhaps not unlike those sources he mentions in Luke 1:1–4 and Acts 1:1–3.

In short, the multiple independent sources and the numerous examples of embarrassment, along with the discontinuity of having no significant influence from the Old Testament and virtually nothing reappearing in the New Testament, all add further data to this case. Lastly, the likelihood that one or more of these recollections was contributed ultimately by an eyewitness or drawn from a reliable source that knew the eyewitness would further serve to clinch the matter rather strongly. Thus, we conclude that the disciples’ emotional struggles from just before the crucifixion until they thought they witnessed appearances of the risen Jesus is a firm fact of history.

As will be shown below, there is little disagreement on the part of critical scholars, including the most skeptical members among them, that the disciples’ disillusionment and despair following the crucifixion was precisely what occurred in the earliest time after this momentous event. Probably leading the way in this direction is that such a process would have been the normal psychological response of close friends in light of all of these deeply disturbing details.

Scholarly Research

Critical scholars very seldom question the claim that the crucifixion of Jesus was a very difficult event for his disciples to understand and internalize. This especially would have been the case for those who were in Jerusalem when the trial and crucifixion occurred. Then later that night (traditionally Friday evening) plus all day Saturday, it would make sense that they would have suffered tremendous psychological pain.

How could this not have been the case? The physical pain and discomfort of their time with Jesus would potentially have been behind them. Many of Jesus’s closest followers had accompanied him for some time, often conventionally thought of as a period of some three years; many having left behind fishing or other businesses, presumably traveling without their family members, possibly staying outside in little shelter, and so on. Even if they returned home occasionally (as in Mark 1:21–34 and parallels), it would not have been an easy life.

However, the physical discomfort would presumably have been far less than the psychological pain and shock of Jesus’s death. There seems to have been a hope that Jesus would soon right all wrongs and their sacrifice would be well worth it all. They would reign with him. After all, was Jesus not the one who would set up his kingdom presently, being revealed in all his glory (Mark 10:35–40)? Had not his death cut short these expectations, all in an exceptionally brief whirlwind of time (Luke 24:20–21)? How could they possibly have been so mistaken—so wide of the mark? And now the disciples had been reduced to hiding lest what happened to Jesus would also occur to them (John 20:19). These followers can be forgiven if kingdom aspirations may have been forgotten or placed on hold for a brief time due to the imminent danger. Creating far more existential angst was the unimaginable fact that Jesus’s body lay dead in a nearby grave. Had God abandoned him and them as well?16

Even highly critical scholars have freely admitted that this was indeed a dark time for Jesus’s disciples. Highly discouraged, despondent, and even despairing of life and its meaning alike, where would they go from here? Not surprisingly, perhaps, some of the most skeptical theologians have been the most graphic and outspoken on this subject. The slate of quotations here could be filled totally with atheist, agnostic, and other skeptics alone.

Robert Funk asserts that, after Jesus’s death, his early followers faced disappointment and were frightened. They fled the scene of his death. The result was “the defection of Jesus’ closest followers, including Peter.” He states further, “scholars are confident that the disciples abandoned Jesus and fled at his arrest.”17 As Elaine Pagels remarks, “After Jesus’ execution his followers scattered, shaken with grief and terrified for their own lives. Most assumed that their enemies were right—the movement had died with their master.”18 John Shelby Spong states forcefully, “The overwhelming probability is that the uncompromising truth was expressed in the phrase ‘they all forsook him and fled.’ Jesus died alone.”19

Continuing these concessions, Hugh Jackson speaks graphically of the disciples being “portrayed as numbed by the shock of the crucifixion” in spite of Jesus’s previous comments about this event. “The crucifixion, therefore, must have been acutely psychologically inconsistent with the disciples’ expectations. . . . They had expected a triumph; they had witnessed a humiliation.”20

Jack Kent points out that “the disciples’ pattern of coming to grips with the death of Jesus falls into the normal stages of bereavement as described in contemporary bereavement research.” Explaining further, Kent attests that Jesus’s disciples “were plunged into grief and experienced uncertainty, fear, guilt, anxiety, and denial.”21

For Willi Marxsen, to some extent the early resurrection faith was the answer to the disciples’ doubts, fears, perplexities, and confusion. Out of that state their faith emerged, as Jesus was thought to have comforted them in some sense: “They have experienced his presence.” Marxsen states that because the texts preserve the centrality of sight, then “quite generally, what is being spoken of is a vision.”22 Helmut Koester comments succinctly: “Most of all, the resurrection changed sorrow and grief, or even hate and rejection, into joy, creativity, and faith.”23

For Hans Küng, Jesus’s death by all appearances appeared to be a terrifying event where Jesus was left alone on the cross, seemingly abandoned by both his Father as well as his disciples. The existential pain was thick and real. But Easter was the event that rectified a painful situation.24 A. J. M. Wedderburn addresses this subject often, in that the available sources employ terms and attitudes such as disarray, dismay, despair, denial, hopelessness, despondency, and flight, noting that a “dramatic recovery” occurred out of “what had seemed like a crushing defeat.”25

Historian J. K. Elliott concludes that though the resurrection accounts are beset by legend, the writings accurately portray the disciples’ rescue from fear and doubt, for the reality of these situations is too embarrassing to have been invented.26 Philosopher Thomas Sheehan thinks that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, Peter was “a drowning man” who was caught up in his own despair as well as that of his fellow apostles. Whatever the nature of Peter’s original experience, it fit precisely the needs of the “dark days after Jesus’ death” by rescuing both Peter himself as well the others from their time of trial.27

For Dale Allison, the disciples “suffered a moral collapse” and fled the scene of Jesus’s arrest. However, the early disciples’ ensuing responses were unlike similar situations where, in “a whole row of messianic movements around the first and second centuries A.D. the violent death of the leader meant the end of the movement.” Something was different this time, most likely including visions of Jesus, belief that Jesus’s tomb was empty, along with some previous eschatological expectations.28

Thus, researchers across a wide spectrum of views agree here, and many more critical scholars could be added to the ones already provided, where a dozen quite-skeptical researchers acknowledge without question the dark psychological state in which Jesus’s disciples found themselves after their master’s death by crucifixion.29 There is so much agreement on this that it may even prove difficult to ascertain the skeptics from the conservatives if the author’s names were removed. This is not surprising. In fact, any other psychological response on the part of human beings under these or similar circumstances would seem to be ruled out of court.

Christian Preaching and Teaching Began in the City of Jerusalem

Many scholars think that at least many of Jesus’s male disciples fled back to Galilee either after Jesus’s arrest and just before the crucifixion, or immediately after the crucifixion. But either way—Galilee or Jerusalem—it is again virtually unanimous among researchers that the band of early male believers ended up in Jerusalem and began their preaching and teaching careers in that city. There are a number of major reasons to conclude that this was the case.

The Historical Evidence

(1) Eyewitness testimony regarding the early Christian preaching and teaching that originated in Jerusalem is provided by at least the apostle Paul when he visited the city purposely to inquire of “Cephas” (historēsai Kēphān) and James, the brother of Jesus (Iakōbon ton adelphon tou Kyriou), not long after Jesus’s crucifixion (Gal 1:18–19). Paul knew that Jerusalem was the place to visit to initiate a meeting with these two apostles, since they were the early leaders of the movement located there. Even Bart Ehrman speaks of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James as one of the “two key data” that supports the historicity of Jesus, with one of the reasons for this conclusion being the closeness to Paul’s obtaining eyewitness testimony here.30

Then when Paul returned to the city of Jerusalem some fourteen years later, Peter and James were also there again, and on this latter occasion the apostle John was also present (Gal 2:1–10). These four apostles meeting together in this second meeting in Jerusalem involved the four most influential early apostolic leaders (Paul refers to them as those “who were acknowledged pillars” in 2:9), with the three already in the city seemingly headquartered in the city over these years.31 Whether or not this event was the same as the one described in Acts 15:1–29, where Peter (15:7) and James (15:13) are both named, the Acts scenario either provides confirmation for Paul’s comments in Gal 2:1–10 or else relates still another occasion when the city of Jerusalem was the center of apostolic activity as well as the base for the earliest believers.

Moreover, additional support for the dominant and vital role of the Jerusalem hub could come from the sermon summaries in Acts. Potentially either eyewitness information or material drawn from eyewitnesses may be present in some of these very early summaries. Passages regarding Jerusalem contained in this Acts creedal information could include 2:14, 29; 3:13b; plus 13:31. Also, as discussed earlier in this chapter, any further reliable material in the early chapters of Acts could add to this testimony.

(2) Further, these two trips to Jerusalem were likewise dated exceptionally early. The consensus critical view is that the first occasion in Gal 1:18–20 took place approximately five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion, around AD 35–36.32 The second visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1–10 was also very early as well, usually being dated by critical researchers to the late 40s and still most likely preceding the writing of Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians in about AD 50.33 As just noted, these two trips to Jerusalem by Paul along with other data, such as James’s martyrdom in the same city a little over a decade later, basically place James in Jerusalem through the entire thirty years, with Peter and John also being there for the better part of a decade or two after the crucifixion. As such, Jerusalem was clearly the headquarters of activity for the earliest believers.

(3) This geographical location for the birth of what would later become the early church as well as the hub of preaching and teaching for years is multiply attested in independent or largely independent sources. These texts incorporate a diversity of materials as well, from canonical to noncanonical as well as secular sources. Most obviously, the major canonical texts include Luke 24:13–49 and John 20:16–23,34 along with the appearance to at least the women in Matthew (M?) as they left the empty tomb in Jerusalem (28:8–10), as they did not follow any disciples who may have returned to Galilee. Beyond the canon, the appearances narrated in the longer and later conclusion of Mark (i.e., pseudo-Mark)35 is an addition that is often dated to the second century.36 The narrated events in the Gospel of Peter (9:1–13:3), likely also a second-century writing,37 are likewise specifically positioned in Jerusalem (9:1). In this text (14:1–3) at least some of the disciples were apparently fishing in Galilee.

Though almost always taken as an extension of Luke’s Gospel and hence not represented as a separate source in this count, the location of Christian preaching throughout the early chapters of Acts is obviously Jerusalem. This activity begins in Jerusalem and then branches out everywhere else (Acts 1:8), extending at least through Acts 8:1.

As is the case with contemporary critical scholars as a whole, Paul’s testimony is considered to be preeminent. The two visits to Jerusalem in Galatians 1 and 2 to inquire of the chief apostles living there are the most important of his comments, as already mentioned, with the first one dating a mere five years after Jesus’s crucifixion and the second still before the earliest canonical text.

Additionally, Paul comments several times on the funds that were being collected among gentile churches to be taken to Jerusalem for the poor believers there.38 The Gentiles had an opportunity here to contribute to the Jews in a physical way after the latter’s spiritual blessings had been extended to them (Rom 15:27). Paul no doubt refers here to the entire Jewish history and revelation, as Jews were the channel of God’s grace to the world (cf. John 4:22). But it ought not be missed here that Paul is clearly referring in these texts to the Christian saints now residing in Jerusalem.39 As the center of the Christian world, this would also include the key apostles who lived there. In other words, Paul continues to recognize that the birth of Christianity originated in this city as well.

While writing in the late first century, Jewish historian Josephus explains comparatively little about Jesus or the early Christians. Historian Barnett notes five total passages in Josephus that “throw light on Christ and Christian origins.” He notes that two of these comments are direct and three are indirect.40 One of Josephus’s statements pertains to the martyrdom of James, to whom he refers as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Josephus explains that James was stoned to death in the city of Jerusalem, an event that occurred in AD 62 (Ant. 20.9.1). This notation helpfully indicates that more than thirty years after Jesus’s crucifixion, James was still ministering in the same city where Luke states that he was present in the “upper room” shortly after Jesus’s death (Acts 1:14), and where Paul found him twice in the mid-30s and the late 40s. This timeline indicates virtually by itself that the center of the earliest Christian activity remained in this same city.

Roman historian Tacitus explains that during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate (Pilatus) was the Roman procurator in Judea,41 Jesus (Christus) suffered capital punishment. However, even after Jesus’s death, “a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome” (Ann. 15.44).42 Here an ancient secular historian identifies Judea as the birthplace of Christianity. With Pilate residing in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’s trial, this serves to further identify the same area discussed above.

Even without attempting to be exhaustive in this treatment, we have enumerated eight independent sources that witness to the birth of the Christian movement in Jerusalem and the earliest preaching and teaching that took place there, spread over canonical, noncanonical, and secular avenues.43 For a nonminimal historical fact, this seems to be a fairly significant number.

(4) These sources are also derived from multiple forms. The chief idea here is that if a particular theme can be located across several literary kinds of material, then those ideas were “deeply embedded in the earliest church traditions.”44 These include the Gospel narratives with their stories of Jesus (from different Gospel sources, as already noted), Paul’s Epistles, creeds and Acts sermon summaries, and a couple of ancient historians.

(5) A last criterion to be mentioned here is plausibility or coherence, given other similar stories of Jewish kings, prophets, or major events. If one would pick a likely geographical scenario in the environs of Judea for a major new movement to begin, grow, and spread, it simply should be expected that Jerusalem would be the most likely choice. It was the chief city in that entire region at that time and was the home of so many huge happenings throughout the past. Plus it was the location of Jesus’s crucifixion, so almost everyone was already there. Therefore, this should be anything but a huge surprise—it ought to be expected.

For a series of events in and around the city of Jerusalem that is already so widely recognized as historical without major dispute, five historical arguments are enough to further solidify these historical occurrences. In fact, considerations such as these could even be the sorts of reasons that led to this scholarly recognition in the first place.

Scholarly Research

Further, even though the birth of the church in Jerusalem is not one of the minimal facts in this study, it is still included in the next stage of events—in what has been called here the “accepted” or “known” historical data. So it is still both important and helpful to apply the second prong of the stricter minimal facts argument that would require a high proportion of critical scholars to agree to the general outline of what has been stated here. We may note that the presence of this quality agreement is precisely what we do find here, even including the most skeptical representatives.

Several influential Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have weighed in on these topics and have affirmed at least the basics of this issue in spite of their underlying skepticism. Five of these members are included here. John Dominic Crossan,45 Marcus Borg,46 Robert Funk,47 among others, each clearly affirm that the early events from Jesus’s crucifixion to many of the disciples’ original experiences occurred in the area of Jerusalem.

As John Shelby Spong attests strongly: “To the best of my knowledge, it is not questioned that Christianity broke out in human history in Jerusalem rather than in some other remote region of Galilee . . . there is no doubt that Jerusalem is the city in which Christianity was born.”48 Another Jesus Seminar fellow, Gerd Lüdemann, also affirms the historicity of Jesus’s crucifixion along with some sort of appearances in Jerusalem.49

It has already been mentioned that atheist New Testament specialist Ehrman takes it basically for granted that the city of Jerusalem was the central location for many of the key events in the early church, from the heavily attested crucifixion of Jesus all the way through many of the disciples’ postmortem experiences of Jesus; from Paul’s two trips to the same city to dialogue with the other chief apostolic leaders Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John all the way through to James’s martyrdom, covering over thirty years in the process.50 Ehrman even considers some of the key events here to be exceptionally well established.51

Rather intriguingly, a number of non-Christian Jewish scholars have also affirmed the historicity of these early church events in Jerusalem. These include former Oxford historian Geza Vermes and New Testament specialist Pinchas Lapide.52 It should probably be assumed that whatever is allowed or confirmed here must be due to the conviction that the historical and other data are significant.

Many other critical scholars have also affirmed the set of “Jerusalem events” such as those enumerated here, including especially the most crucial occurrences among them.53 In fact, a nearly unanimous list of the members of the scholarly community could probably be produced, since there is exceptionally little objection to these items. The title of Dunn’s volume listed in the footnote below, Beginning from Jerusalem, summarizes this entire matter quite well. But this brief survey of recent researchers should be sufficient to indicate the widespread acceptance of these events in and around Jerusalem as the earliest Christian gospel was being proclaimed.

The Church Began Meeting on Sunday and Spread

Following the beginnings of Christian preaching in Jerusalem, groups of believers began to gather in this city and elsewhere as the message spread to other locations. Acts 2:42–47 summarizes well the reasons for regular meetings, including ongoing teaching, worship, fellowship, prayer, and sharing possessions as well as meals. The special Communion supper instituted by Jesus was a highlight, as reproduced especially by Paul in the pre-Pauline creedal passage in 1 Cor 11:23–25, which some scholars think actually goes back to the period before Paul’s conversion and possibly even to Jesus himself, just as Paul states in introducing the tradition.54

According to Acts, 3,000 people joined the movement after Peter’s first sermon on Pentecost (2:41), with that number swelling to a total of 5,000 persons soon afterwards (4:4). Of course, many of these new believers probably returned home after the Passover season, which would presumably account for more groups moving and meeting elsewhere. This and similar cases of spreading to still more locations provides some indications of how the early church movement grew.

The Historical Evidence

It would appear that few arguments are necessary to demonstrate the existence of the church, in that it is recognized by both believers and unbelievers as the phenomenon which sprang up after Jesus’s resurrection, primarily due to the many solid reasons in favor of its occurrence. After all, it is a sociological phenomenon in itself. But a few brief things should still be mentioned beyond what has already been stated here, to link the existence of the church to the resurrection of Jesus.

(1) That there was no church before Jesus’s resurrection while one appeared directly after this event is a pointer to the potential connection between these occurrences. Further, as presented in Acts 2, even Peter’s sermon that led directly to the first 3,000 “members” was based chiefly and centrally on Jesus, his death, and resurrection (2:22–36). That was the connection there.

(2) Strong eyewitness testimony of the existence of the church in the Jerusalem area comes from the apostle Paul, plus any firsthand word drawn from the independently attested sources in the Acts sermon summaries mentioned in the previous point as well. Additionally, some pre-Pauline creedal reports like 1 Cor 11:23; 2 Cor 13:13; and 1 Thess 1:9–10 also provide information that presupposes the existence of the church. These plus any more direct testimony taken from the Gospel passages also mentioned above combine to draw into focus again a significant array of potential eyewitness data, or close to that.

(3) Though early data do not always follow necessarily from eyewitness testimony, this is another time where they do indeed indicate this. Paul’s trips to Jerusalem at approximately five and eighteen years (respectively) after Jesus’s crucifixion, along with the Acts sermon summaries plus a few pre-Pauline creeds that are dated to the 30s, are all before the appearance of the very first New Testament writing. Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem plus the creeds and sermon summaries all date more than a full decade beforehand, as conceded by the majority of even skeptical critical scholars. It is also possible that some sources that were utilized by the Gospel authors, such as particular personal testimonies like those mentioned in Luke 1:1–4, could also fall well within this time frame, foreshadowing the coming church.

(4) The chief and usual day of worship in the New Testament was the first day of the week, Sunday,55 though some variation of this scenario may possibly be reflected in Rom 14:5–6a. For example, Jewish Christians may have attended the synagogue on Saturday and met with their church groups the next day. But for those who were Jewish law observers, Jesus’s resurrection is seemingly the best way to explain what they were doing by worshipping on Sunday. N. T. Wright argues that 1 Cor 16:2 shows that, by the mid-50s, Sunday was being kept by early Christians as the Lord’s Day.56

(5) The connection between Jesus’s resurrection and the birth, life, and nurturing of the church is attested by multiple independent sources. Probably no writing makes this clearer than the book of Acts. Luke’s Gospel ends with the risen Jesus explaining that he had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead, then predicting and projecting that through these events the gospel would go out from Jerusalem into the entire world (Luke 24:45–48). This appears to signal the projected outline for Acts, where the book begins with the roadmap of 1:8, followed by the first five chapters on the founding of the church, with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ being the key to each chapter and speech alike.57 It seems more than clear that it was the gospel proclamation that gave rise to the church.

Similar to the final chapter of Luke, which looks ahead from the teaching of the risen Jesus to the later birth of the church, Matthew, John, and the pseudo-Markan ending make similar moves. In John, the risen Jesus sends out his disciples into the world for ministry, extending to them, in some sense, the right to forgive sins (John 20:21–23), as well as speaking about those who would come to believe in him later without the advantage of physical sight (20:29–31). Matthew closes his Gospel with Jesus’s admonition to his followers to make disciples among all the nations, baptizing them and teaching them obedience (Matt 28:18–20; see also the additional hints in 10:22–23; 16:18; 18:17–19). Even in Mark, there are slight hints of the disciples’ future ministry after Jesus’s death, as in mentioning what appears to be the future martyrdoms of brothers James and John (Mark 10:38–39). In Mark’s long ending, Jesus also commands the “eleven” to go everywhere in the world and preach the gospel, baptizing them with accompanying signs (16:15–18).

An additional ministry for Jesus’s followers, especially beyond his own resurrection, is therefore in view in these texts. Some would not think of a ministry with others as necessarily being a church. But going to the entire world and proclaiming the gospel message along with teaching, baptizing, and making more disciples, alongside being martyred like Jesus, hints broadly that many people began following Jesus postresurrection. As simple as it sounds, it must be remembered that churches are not buildings, and the converts that would result from these exercises that Jesus commanded of his disciples can certainly be called a church, since the term ekklēsia (see Matt 18:17) is used of a group of people and was used that way in secular Greek as well (like in Acts 19:39). In texts such as 1 Cor 16:19; Acts 10:24–25; and Phlm 2, local churches were small enough to meet in private homes.

Without attempting to be anywhere near comprehensive, even a modicum of New Testament texts should be sufficient to indicate many other passages that build bridges between Jesus’s resurrection and the birth of the church. Many other canonical texts also indicate the interconnectedness of the resurrection with the birth and maturing of the church.58

Regarding the Epistles of Paul, the clearest texts regarding the existence of the Jerusalem church are probably Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem in Gal 1:18–20 and 2:1–10, where Paul dialogues with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in the first visit and with the same two apostles plus John in the second trip respectively. Beyond the visits with these apostles, there is much evidence here of a church already in existence in that area. Paul reports after the initial trip that there were churches already in Judea at that time (Gal 1:22–24), only about five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion. On the second occasion, Paul speaks of individuals who challenged Barnabas and himself who may have been connected with the church there in some way.59 Still, Gal 1:22–24 is enough by itself, and at an earlier date at that, to indicate that the church existed in that area.

Another helpful Pauline text here is 1 Cor 15:12–20, where Paul basically argues that if Jesus had not been raised from the dead, there would be no church, no doctrine, no ministry hence without good practice. But these aspects will be unpacked more fully below on the issue of the centrality of the resurrection, so this is sufficient for now. Second Corinthians 4:7–18 constitutes another beautiful passage that links together Jesus’s and the believer’s resurrections with the ongoing problems faced by the church at Corinth, which follows the earlier discussion at the outset of the book in 1:1–7.

How Paul’s Epistles are counted will obviously affect the source total here. If only the seven “authentic” epistles are tallied as belonging to Paul, then we have so far mentioned twelve total texts that reflect the growth of the church in Jerusalem. But if all thirteen epistles attributed to Paul are counted together,60 a smaller total of nine sources will be the count so far because the other letters that critics think are falsely attributed to Paul will no longer be separate texts.61

Beyond the canonical texts plus the long ending of Mark, two other possibilities might be mentioned. The Gospel of Peter may have been only a Passion and resurrection document alone, although the end and beginning of the text are missing, deterring a definite reading of the text. Thus it is possible that if the Gospel of Peter is anything like the canonical Gospel texts just mentioned, perhaps Peter also originally at least hinted of an additional ministry for Jesus’s followers after his death. Additionally, if the opening sentence of the Gospel of Thomas is taken in the way that it often is, namely, where the reference to the “living Jesus” is actually the resurrected Jesus who is the one who is doing the speaking in this book,62 then some of the contents of the work would also most likely point in its own sometimes convuluted way to early church teachings.

Moreover, it was also shown above that two ancient pagan historians both seem to refer to the activity of Jesus’s followers after his death. Jewish historian Josephus indicates that Christians still held to their faith after the crucifixion of Jesus, including also the possibility that Jesus’s disciples claimed that Jesus appeared to them after his death (Ant. 18.3.3). Roman historian Tacitus also explains that after Jesus was sentenced to death under Pontius Pilate and died by crucifixion, his followers still continued to spread his teachings in Judea and also as far as Rome (Ann. 15.44).

These four additional sources—the Gospels of Peter and Thomas along with two probably stronger ones from Tacitus and Josephus—potentially bring the source total (depending on the Pauline count and the status of Peter and Thomas) to somewhere between eleven and sixteen different texts establishing the Christian church in Jerusalem after Jesus’s resurrection. Like the previous tally, this includes canonical, noncanonical, and secular sources.

(6) This wealth of independent sources also exists in multiple forms. Paul’s Epistles, the Gospel narratives from both canonical and noncanonical writings, the appropriate creeds and Acts sermon summaries, along with a couple of ancient historians indicate the widespread nature and depth of these reports.

It is no wonder that the birth of the church, featuring Sunday as the preferred meeting day, enjoys almost total agreement from the community of critical scholars, including skeptical researchers. This strong list of historical reasons probably plays a large role in this recognition and may well account for the absence of much major opposition.

Scholarly Research

Even skeptical scholars of various stripes trace the origin of the earliest Christian church directly to the disciples’ post-crucifixion experiences. Lüdemann points out that the preaching of Jesus’s appearances took place right away. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14–47 along with other “instruction by the apostles is also to be accepted as historical” since these leaders had a major role in the founding of the Christian community.63 In a large volume on Jesus, John Dominic Crossan notes that the resurrection apparitions reflect the movement that Jesus inspired, including his continuing presence, the leadership of the apostles, and the swift spread of the Christian faith.64 Such were Jesus’s influence, ethics, and magnetism. For Elaine Pagels, we know that certain disciples led by Peter were the link between the resurrection proclamation and the Christian organization that developed.65 Ehrman affirms often that it was precisely the preaching of Jesus’s resurrection that “changed absolutely everything.”66 Whatever the Easter visions were, John Hick notes, “Less than this could hardly have launched the movement which sprang up so vigorously after Jesus’ death, and more is probably not required to account for it.”67

Agnostic historian Elliott agrees the apostles’ belief in Jesus’s resurrection is what changed these “frightened men . . . into church founders and missionaries.”68 Then more succinctly, in the Gospels, “the foundation of the church began with the resurrection.”69 Barnabas Lindars concludes that the list of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 probably accounts for how “the primitive Church came into being.” In particular, the events witnessed by the disciples marked “the formal inauguration of the Church.”70 Skeptical questioner Margaret Thrall asserts that some sort of real or psychological experiences had to have happened to Jesus’s disciples to account “for the origin of the Christian Church.”71 John A. T. Robinson lists the church as one of the many benefits that the resurrection brought into existence.72

This is another topic taken from our two lists of historical facts in this study—the “minimal” and the “known” or “accepted” data (with this one being drawn from the latter)—where there is such widespread recognition from careful researchers that the vast majority of scholars could be included as affirming these results. So it will be sufficient here to conclude this point by adding to the more skeptical comments above an additional number of other researchers who share similar views to those that were just mentioned, that the belief in Jesus’s resurrection gave rise to the existence of the church.73

Are “the Third Day” after Jesus’s Death/“First Day of the Week” Historical Markers?

The previous two historical facts treated in this chapter fit together well as they concern the initial Christian preaching and teaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, the same location as Jesus’s crucifixion. Further, the city was also the traditional location of the empty burial tomb of Jesus as well as the environs for Jesus’s initial postresurrection appearances recorded as occurring on the same day to both the women at the tomb and later to Jesus’s disciples.

At an early date, the actual event of Jesus’s resurrection, the empty tomb, and his initial postresurrection appearances were placed on the third day after his death, which was also variously referred to as the first day of the week (Sunday), that is, the day after the Jewish Sabbath. This accounts for the references in the New Testament to the earliest believers meeting for worship, prayer, and study on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection and appearances of the risen Jesus.

Yet, critical scholars have questioned whether seemingly historical demarcations such as the “third day” and “the first day of the week” were meant to commemorate exact days like the crucifixion weekend, or whether these markers might simply refer to “a brief time later” or something similar, especially since “after three days” is used especially in Mark.74 Also suggested is that these time references may point to theological fulfillments or celebrations of one sort or another rather than to historical days.75 Still others think that the time references here are taken from early Christian remembrances that date back to the original historical events.76 Interestingly enough, the lists here indicate rather clearly that while scholars may often be identified as liberal, moderate, or conservative, depending on where they line up on various issues, this occasion presents some intriguing “crossover” views that sometimes transverse the expected “party lines.”

Reginald Fuller maps out some of the possible terrain here. The historical view would most likely point to the empty tomb and the initial appearances of Jesus as the reason for the demarcation of the third day. However, in the early creedal tradition of 1 Cor 15:3, the “third day” applies specifically to the resurrection event itself (15:4), which oddly enough was not witnessed by anyone.77

A common doctrinal solution seeks to tie these Gospel events to Hos 6:2 and the day of Israel’s corporate resurrection on the third day. But a difficulty here is that this text is never specifically cited in the New Testament to refer to the phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor 15:4. The Jonah and the great fish comparisons in Matt 12:38–40 and 16:1–4 (cf. Luke 11:29–30, 32) are used as the sign to vindicate Jesus’s teachings as “an analogy to the burial and resurrection of Jesus,” and the third day is employed in Matthew’s context as a time marker here. But Fuller thinks that the chief issue for this option is that this Old Testament text was not used until comparatively late in the Synoptic tradition, in contrast to the exceptional earliness of the Corinthian creed.78

In what Fuller terms the “cultic origin” option, the earliest New Testament reference to Christians worshipping on the first day of the week is 1 Cor 16:2 (see also Acts 20:7; Rev 1:10; and Did. 14:1), but the creedal reference to the third day in 1 Cor 15:4 is earlier still, probably originating with the Christian belief that this was the day on which Jesus arose. The suggestion argued by some nineteenth-century German liberal scholars of the well-known religionsgeschichtliche Schule that the third day was probably borrowed from ancient pre-Christian tales is treated by Fuller as having “dubious evidence” in its favor since “the parallels are by no means exact,” as well as this pagan material being “too remote from the New Testament.”79 Fuller opts for the suggestion that the utilizing of the “third” and “first” day references are not to be taken historically. Rather, these terms indicate the view that Jesus’s resurrection marks the beginning of the end times.80

However, in response to Fuller, if the clause in 1 Cor 15:4b that includes the reference to the “third day” most clearly indicates the resurrection event itself, which was not observed by human eyes, how would that change anything? This occurrence still would have had a very strict terminus a quo and terminus ad quem. After all, the resurrection event could not have happened before the crucifixion! Further, the empty tomb or Jesus’s earliest appearances (especially if taken traditionally as having occurred on the first Sunday after the crucifixion) would quite clearly serve as cut-off dates.

In such a case, according to the majority scholarly view, the length of time during which Jesus’s resurrection was at least thought to have occurred would stretch only from the Friday crucifixion and late-afternoon burial to very early Sunday morning. Thus, whether or not human eyes witnessed the resurrection event itself, that’s a tight demarcation window of just one and a half days! In short, if Jesus died on a Friday afternoon and if either the tomb had been discovered to be empty or if Jesus’s followers reported experiences that they took to be appearances of the risen Jesus just some thirty-six hours later, these bookend events would account fairly for an event that occurred in between those two times.

Further, regarding Fuller’s comment that the angle taken in Matt 12:38–40 (cf. Matt 16:1–4) came late in the Synoptic tradition, much later than the 1 Corinthians 15 creedal tradition, these texts in Matthew 12 and 16 (plus the parallel in Luke 11:29–32) are taken by most scholars to be drawn from a citation in the Q source.81 If so, this would place the reference to the third day far earlier than the Synoptic tradition,82 possibly providing some reason to agree with Hans Bayer that the “sign of Jonah” in Jewish texts that predate Christianity was a reference to Jonah being resuscitated from death.83 If this angle is sustained, the two arguments that the third day may well commemorate the resurrection event itself using a reference from both pre-Christian Jewish and early Christian traditions would favor the interpretation that “the third day” and “the first day of the week” fit more closely as literal reminiscences from the early church.

Fuller is correct that even recent skeptical New Testament scholars almost always reject the conclusions of the nineteenth-century religionsgeschichtliche Schule regarding the early church borrowing the concept of the third day from pagan sources.84 As far as fulfilling these “third” and “first” day markers, many of the specialist researchers into the dying and rising god scenarios note the major disparities between this category and the early Christian teachings concerning these specific days.85

A survey of the relevant New Testament references and other data both confirm this historical core as well as point further to the criteria that indicate a more literal meaning for these phrases, as will now be presented. What are some of these data?

Initially it should be mentioned that we must be cautious in utilizing some of the typical historical arguments on behalf of the designations of the third day after the crucifixion or the first day of the week. For example, it might be asserted that these comments were embedded in the very early tradition (as in the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7) or that they were derived from eyewitness observations (such as Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 16:2). Presumably most critical scholars would even concede these themes. However, such references fail to answer the prior question of how these phrases were originally employed in these early, perhaps apostolic scenarios.

Thus, unless it were already known that these demarcations of time were meant originally as literal descriptions, comments that they were originally used chiefly as theological applications would not necessarily be refuted in this manner, for it could always be concluded that the theological meaning was the original sense from the beginning. Do any additional considerations help here in deciding the nature of the original intent?

Whatever the precise, intended sense of the original meaning, it remains the case that these expressions certainly came into use at a very early date. Referring to 1 Cor 15:3, Metzger asserts, “The formulation of belief in Christ’s resurrection on the third day was fixed before Paul’s conversion.” This would place this dating just shortly after Jesus’s crucifixion, indicating that it “was proclaimed openly as part of the general apostolic kerygma from the very earliest days of the Church, as the evidence in all strata of Acts makes abundantly clear.”86

The empty tomb story in all four canonical Gospels opens by remarking that the women’s trip to the sepulcher occurred on the first day of the week.87 All four of these texts likewise state either directly or indirectly that this visit occurred the day after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1; Matt 28:1; Luke 23:56; John 19:42). Whatever else is thought here, the Gospels give the impression that Jesus’s hasty burial occurred late Friday afternoon, followed by the observance of the Sabbath day. The walk to the tomb by the women then occurred just as soon as it could be accomplished, directly after the close of the Sabbath. There they discovered that the grave had been vacated.

At this juncture in the present discussion, neither the historicity of Jesus’s burial nor the conclusions regarding the emptiness of the tomb are in view—these are matters taken up elsewhere in this study in much detail. But for now it is crucial to note initially that each of the four canonical Gospel authors at least thought rather clearly that they had been narrating a historical sequence here. A crucifixion and quick burial were accomplished on Friday, a Sabbath rest was observed on Saturday, and the women’s trip to the tomb occurred quite early the very next morning.88 It would seem rather difficult to argue that another option other than a linear progression of days was in view in these scenarios, thus supporting the literal, historical meaning of this first day.

Metzger’s thoughts above cited the strata in Acts too. Acts 10:40 may have been one of those indications that he had in mind here, where in one of the Petrine sermon summaries Jesus is declared to have been raised on the third day rather than employing Luke’s own designation of the first day of the week in Luke 24:1. The difference here may very well have been due to the presence of a pre-Lukan sermon summary in Acts rather than the author’s own earlier phrase. We have already seen that the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3 also mentions the third day. Moreover, in both the pre-Lukan sermon summary as well as the pre-Pauline creedal tradition, the third day clearly refers to the amount of time between the day of Jesus’s crucifixion and the time of his initial appearances to his followers.

In Luke 24:19–24, the two travelers to Emmaus state perhaps even more plainly that the day of Jesus’s resurrection and empty tomb both occurred on the third day after the crucifixion. Of course, this text makes it plain that these two walkers were at that very minute also beholding a postresurrection appearance of Jesus. Thus, both the three-day and the one-day sequences at least purport to measure dual paths in representing the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection event itself, the empty tomb, and the beginning of Jesus’s appearances. The three-day scenario depicts the total elapsed time, while the one-day count refers to the day following the Sabbath on that same weekend.

Additionally, both the three- and one-day time measurements are multiply attested. The three-day sequence is found in at least five independent sources: Matt 12:38–40 (from either Q or M); Luke 24:21 (L); a pre-Lukan sermon summary in Acts 10:39–41; the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–5 (both early creedal traditions); plus being represented in Jesus’s resurrection predictions located in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34; and John 2:20.

The mention of the first day as applied to Jesus’s resurrection is found in Mark 16:2 (plus parallels) and John 20:1, making two independent sources. If the Epistle of Barnabas is counted here, then there are three independent sources. In speaking of the Sabbath as no longer possessing its original spiritual significance, the Epistle of Barnabas refers to the next day after the Sabbath as the one on which Jesus rose from the dead, as the eighth day, which is plainly the first day of the week (Barn. 15). (This is reminiscent of John’s speaking of the next Sunday after the resurrection as being eight days later in John 20:26.)

Moreover, the third-day references are also located in multiple literary forms since they are found in each of the Gospels plus in a couple of creedal traditions. The first-day demarcation is also located in all of the Gospel narratives, and if the Epistle of Barnabas is counted this would add a noncanonical epistle too. If the Epistle of Barnabas is not added here, then only the three-day texts would be found in multiple literary forms.

Lastly, if Dodd,89 alongside several other scholars,90 is correct that the original form of some of the Acts sermon summaries, or the individual verses contained in them such as Acts 10:40, may originally have been circulated in Aramaic, this would add another historical criterion to the mix, thereby pointing again to the exceptionally early date of these texts. The same conclusion would also apply to a potential Aramaic original for 1 Cor 15:4, with this latter argument having both its detractors, like Hans Conzelmann,91 as well as its defenders, such as Joachim Jeremias.92 Further, Hans Bayer argues that the Q saying in Luke 11:29–30 is an independent source for the three-day theme and indicates an Aramaic syntax as well.93

As agnostic New Testament scholar Wedderburn points out, another major argument that also favors a sequential time thesis is too often overlooked.94 In 1 Cor 16:1–2, Paul mentions that already in the 50s, in the locations of both Galatia and Corinth, local believers met on the first day of the week. In Acts 20:7, Troas is added to the mix where the first day represents the Christian day of worship. Ignatius teaches the same about AD 107, calling the same day where Jesus was raised from the dead “the Lord’s day” (Magn. 9). About AD 150 Justin Martyr also notes that the first day of the week is the commemoration of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances (1 Apol. 67.7). As just mentioned, the Epistle of Barnabas identifies the first day of the week as the “eighth day,” noting that it is the time when the church met due to it being the day when “Jesus rose from the dead” (Barn. 15). In Rev 1:10, “the Lord’s day” is also another likely reference to the day of Jesus’s resurrection, especially with the vision of Jesus just moments later being identified as the one who was dead but is now alive, living forevermore (1:18).

But what ought not be overlooked here is that the tradition being established in these texts that Sunday had become the primary day of Christian worship in celebration of Jesus’s resurrection also favors another linear argument. The “first day” used here pertaining to the time of Christian worship, prayer, and collecting funds is the extenuation of the accounts above. The original reference was the sequence of the three days from the crucifixion to the resurrection event, the discovery of the empty tomb, and the initial appearances of Jesus. So just as the Gospels and Acts employ the “third” or the “first” days as alternate ways to delineate the day of Jesus resurrection, this original linear demarcation had now elongated into the worship on that same, physical day. The beginning of Sunday worship was an extension of the resurrection event, the discovery of the empty tomb, and Jesus’s initial appearances.

Thus, what had been the original three-day sequence at the end of Jesus’s physical life was now represented as many ongoing weekly celebrations of these same events. The emphasis all along, from first to last, was shown to have been a historical one, based on the original events, rather than as a nonchronological, theological celebration such as depicted in Hos 6:2. As repeated by several authors, this original historical weekend later gave rise in many places to weekly worship and proclamation, all following strictly from the historical remembrance and celebration of the original saving acts in history.

Earlier it was mentioned that some scholars preferred the view that the designa-tions “third” and “first” were simply a sort of shorthand for a “brief time later.” Initially, even that label still accentuates that Jesus’s resurrection and appearances occurred soon after the crucifixion. But with the second argument above of Christian worship falling predominantly on the first day of the week (Sunday), this appears once again to point backwards to the original weekend in a way that is difficult to avoid.

Another argument for the historical view should be mentioned briefly. It is noteworthy that the idea of a theological fulfillment rather than a historical one is generally favored by those who reject the literal resurrection and appearances and even the empty tomb. If on the other hand, as this entire study argues, the resurrection of Jesus, the empty tomb, and especially the initial appearances of the risen Jesus were actual events, then this would seem to turn the entire argument to the historical response. While a theological reason can exist with or without a literal event, as will be pointed out momentarily, such actual occurrences would refocus the chief attention and emphasis to what arguably would be the most spectacular manifestations in history. As such, these events would almost certainly become precisely what was described and meant by the notations “first” and “third.” For why would early believers settle for a Jewish theological description of these days when the real events on which their eternal salvation was based were near at hand, within their reach?

On many of these occasions where the theological view is mentioned positively, it is simply just stated without a detailed argument, if any at all.95 Further, the theological option seems to be the odd view out here, in that it is unsupported by the sustained data. On the other hand, both the literal view of three consecutive days and a more middle-road “short time later” view point to occurrences or experiences in actual time from a relatively brief period later. As just mentioned, these actual occurrences would undoubtedly become the focus of the “third” and “first” days. Then, beginning soon after that, these things would indeed be celebrated theologically in worship, preaching, and teaching.

We may now return to a brief consideration of the force of the early and eyewitness reports mentioned earlier in this excursus. It was remarked there that it would have to be known what terms like third and first meant originally before the value of these two species of evidence could be ascertained or applied to this case. But the conclusion just reached here is that these words were both most likely references to a physical day, namely either the first Sunday immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus, or at worst a short time later though still occurring on a Sunday.

Thus, a last conclusion on this matter may be drawn now. The considerations raised above seem to point more firmly to these days being historical time markers instead of theological celebrations of victory.96 If that is the case, the value of having both exceptionally early testimony,97 and even eyewitness references to these events,98 can be better assessed. Historical events reported the weekend or so after Jesus’s crucifixion by eyewitnesses would seem to weigh in as well on this historical side of the argument as exceptionally powerful, confirmatory indications that further cement these “third” and “first” day conclusions.

Concluding then, thoughts of theological victory such as those taught in the Old Testament need not be simply dismissed. These should be woven in here and probably were, as some of the applications in the New Testament Epistles indicate. After all, extraordinary events such as these we have considered would normally be expected to resonate into worship, celebration, and application. But in a case such as the one here, the likelihood of historical events would serve better as the base meaning, trumping the idea that the theological interpretations alone could serve in that role. This is a final rejoinder to the theological arguments such as those of Karl Lehmann and others that the Jewish stories alone could serve as the foundational undergirding for the use of these terms.

The Centrality of the Message of Jesus’s Death and Resurrection

The last “known” or “accepted” historical fact to be treated in this chapter presents a bit of a different situation than the preceding ones. On the one hand, the conviction with which this point is held, even among most of the very critical commentators, is amazingly uniform and robust. Nonetheless, there is somewhat strangely a small amount of dispute coming from at least a couple of areas of scholarship. These objections will be treated here as well, even if only briefly. Initially, some of the arguments in favor of the central and crucial nature of the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus will be addressed, with the first point taking significant time to establish.

The Historical Evidence

(1) When discussing the chief source traditions in the canonical writings, the textual case for the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ seems quite vigorous and untouchable. A brief overview should hopefully make this clear.

In the Synoptic Gospel narratives, many indications from different angles support the position regarding this central emphasis. For example, Jesus predicts on many occasions the shocking news of his death and resurrection, attributing special significance to these events.99 In this study, we have already discussed more than once that a number of these occasions are supported several times over by the relevant criteria. Their frequency and emphasis alone, especially since several of the sayings are well established, indicate that they represent an important theme. Beyond the rate of predictive recurrence, its emphasis, and the backup regarding one of these pronouncements in chapter 10, Mark follows that prediction with the remark that the foremost goal of Jesus’s entire ministry was to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45//Matt 20:28)—it was his overall purpose.

Further, in a Q saying in Matt 12:38–40 and Luke 11:29–30, Jesus addresses the Jewish leaders’ request for a sign to back his authority. In Matthew, Jesus clearly points to “the sign of the prophet Jonah,” referencing his death and resurrection as the only indication that they would receive. Luke also notes the presence of “the sign of Jonah” but does not specify its nature.100 In another passage that is presumed by many scholars to also be from the Q sayings source, a very similar question is answered by both Matthew (16:1–4) and Luke (11:29) as being provided by “the sign of Jonah.”101

Still more indications are available that Jesus’s death and resurrection are the very apex of the Synoptic Gospels and the chief emphasis in these writings. The highly solemn event of the Last Supper was instituted by Jesus to commemorate his death (a ransom according to Mark 10:45 that was “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”), along with the comment that Jesus would be alive to celebrate the event again in God’s kingdom (Mark 14:22–25 and parallels). Though according to the majority of scholars there are no resurrection appearances in Mark, Jesus’s many predictions and the pronouncement by the angel at the empty tomb that Jesus would appear to the disciples in Galilee make it more than clear that Mark knew about at least one appearance of the risen Jesus.102

The conclusions in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke bring it all together from a similar perspective. In Matthew, it is the resurrected Jesus (28:8–10, 16–17) who appears and proclaims that all authority has been given to him. That was precisely the standpoint from which the ongoing gospel discipling, baptizing, and teaching were to be taken to all nations (28:18–20). Similarly in Luke, the truth of Jesus’s resurrection as witnessed especially in 24:36–43 leads straight to verses 46–49. It is precisely because of the resurrection that the path to life had been laid. The gospel message is the absolute center of this message (24:46). Like Matthew, repentance and forgiveness were to be preached (24:47) and the disciples were the designated witnesses of these things (24:48). In both of these Gospels, without the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no offer of the gospel, hence no message, and therefore no postresurrection church.103 Each in their own flavor, Matthew and Luke both close their Gospels in the same manner—working out from the center of the gospel events and proclamation.

Perhaps another way to view this subject is to consider the large percentage of each Gospel that is dedicated to the last week of Jesus’s life. Hence the Gospels have sometimes been viewed as Jesus’s Passion Week prefaced with some prior narratives.104 The large portions being devoted to these themes is another indication of where the authors are placing their foremost attention.

But there is another absolutely crucial matter here that needs to be specified. Just a few high points throughout the Synoptic Gospel teaching were highlighted here—such as Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection, the Jonah sign comments, plus the Last Supper—as clear indications that these events form the center of the overall teaching. But it also must be remembered that ever since Rudolf Bultmann (and actually even before his notoriety), it has been correctly recognized throughout contemporary theology that the Gospels are largely reports written from the standpoint of looking back through the lens of Jesus’s resurrection.105 So, without this central perspective, there would simply be no Synoptic view whatsoever, at least in the form that it exists now. In this sense it is far too shortsighted to ask where the specific resurrection teachings are located in the Gospels, for in a sense everything is about Jesus’s death and resurrection. These writings would not be here but for these grand occurrences.

In John, the situation is not that much different from that of the Synoptics. John also makes it clear that he is concerned with this same key theme. For example, Jesus predicts his death by itself (3:14–15; 12:32–33; cf. 11:50–52), as well as his death and resurrection together (2:18–22). This latter instance is quite reminiscent of the Jonah texts in Matthew and probably Luke, in that the answer to the Jewish request for a sign is also the resurrection. Many of the teaching portions of this book also depict (as well as predict) the gospel message of Jesus’s death and resurrection.106

Likewise, the resurrection and appearances of Jesus are the crowning capstone of Jesus’s life, with scenes like Jesus’s appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:13–16), to the disciples (20:19–23), and later to Thomas (20:24–29) to quell their doubts and disbelief. Then to make matters clear, the author pronounces the theme of the entire book as a closing admonition, commenting that the miracles recorded therein, culminating with Jesus’s resurrection, were narrated to invite personal belief and eternal life (20:30–31). In the last chapter, whether written by the same author or as an appendix (21:24), Jesus’s threefold charge to Peter to follow him and to “feed his sheep” (21:15–22) carries 20:31 forward into the world, as signified through the person of Peter as the apostolic leader. As with the Synoptics then, Jesus’s death and resurrection clearly are what provide both the overall theme here as well as the admonition to take this gospel message to the world.

The existing portion of the Gospel of Peter is fragmentary, but the narrative begins with a brief treatment of Jesus’s trial, progresses through the crucifixion, burial, and a rather incredible scene of a giant Jesus exiting the tomb assisted by two very large angels. Another amazing scene with the soldiers and Pilate follows afterward. The women go to the tomb and discover that it is empty except for a young man dressed in an exceedingly bright white robe who announces that Jesus has risen from the dead. The fragment ends with the disciples, who had left some time earlier presumably for Galilee, preparing to go fishing. Of course, questions remain here, including a reliable date of composition and whether the original source was more than a Passion and resurrection source. Nonetheless, judging from what is available, the author(s) of the Gospel of Peter arguably considered these events to be central, at least in as far as they are the sum of the narrative.

Perhaps no canonical book sets forth the central nature of the death and resurrection of Jesus as clearly or frequently as does the book of Acts. The book opens immediately in 1:3 with the comment that Jesus died, rose again, and appeared over a period of forty days. The first five chapters explode on the scene with the teaching of the risen Jesus followed by his ascension (1:1–11), then the choosing of a twelfth apostle to take Judas’s place, where the requirement is having been a witness to Jesus’s ministry and especially to his risen appearances (1:22).

The next four chapters include the best known of the very early sermon summaries, with every one of them centering on the resurrection. Sometimes the idea is something akin to providing evidence for the Christian claims (like Acts 2:22–24; 3:12–16). In fact, Acts 4:2 states that the apostles’ theme on that occasion was teaching the people that en Iēsou, “in Jesus,” the dead would be raised too. Then after their confrontation with the Sanhedrin, the text asserts that “with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 4:33 NRSV). This text appears to identify the main theme of the apostles’ teaching, namely, that the Lord Jesus had been raised from the dead (tēs anastaseōs).

The other two chapters that contain the best examples of the early sermon summaries are Acts 10 and 13, and these also center on the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Acts 10, Peter appeals to what his Gentile listeners already knew about Jesus (humeis oidate, 10:37). He gets to the crux of the message when he states that the apostles had preached the good news that the Lord Jesus (houtos estin pantōn kyrios, 10:36) had been hanged on a tree and was raised from the dead on the third day and was seen by God’s chosen witnesses (10:39–41). This foundational theme propelled these messengers to preach to everyone, informing them that God was the judge in these matters but that faith in the Lord Jesus could gain forgiveness (10:42–43).

In Acts 13, when Paul reaches the portion of his preaching concerning the salvation message (ho logos tēs sōtērias tautēs, 13:26), he asserts that the Jerusalem leaders sought out Pilate to crucify Jesus, the Son of God, after which they took him down from the tree and buried him in a tomb. But before his body began decaying, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to those who were now his witnesses (13:26–35). These witnesses were now themselves preaching this message of faith for the forgiveness of sins (13:38–39).

Though much less frequently, some influential commentators consider portions of Paul’s proclamation in Acts 17 to also contain early sermon summaries and confessional materials as well.107 This chapter begins in Thessalonica, and scholars note that a likely confessional phrase probably occurs. In the opening of the chapter, the reader is told that Paul’s normal custom (kata to eiōthos tō Paulōi, 17:2) was to enter a Jewish synagogue and dialogue regarding the dual truth that Jesus was the Messiah and that he had also risen from the dead (17:2–3). Later in the chapter, having traveled to Athens, Paul argues with the influential philosophers at the Areopagus, proclaiming the truth of the Christian message that God commanded repentance from everyone and providing assurance (pistin paraschōn, 17:31) of these things on the grounds of Jesus’s resurrection (17:31). Some of the intellectuals sneered (hoi men echleuazon), some asked to hear more, and some even believed and became followers of Paul (kollēthentes autō episteusan, 17:32–34)!

From this exceptionally quick tour of a number of textual highlights in the book of Acts, it should be clear that the resurrection of Jesus is the center of these major passages. As Longenecker states concerning Luke’s practice throughout this volume, “In almost all of the sermons he records, he presents the resurrection of Jesus as the crucial topic and focal point of what was proclaimed.”108

Lastly, we come to the apostle Paul, regarded by almost all critical scholars as the most important writer in the New Testament. There is no better passage in the New Testament on the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus than 1 Cor 15:12–20. After discussing the testimony for Jesus’s appearances (15:3–8) and the apostolic agreement on these data (15:11), Paul turns to the theological and practical value of the resurrection. He states clearly that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then preaching is vain or empty (kenon) and so is faith (15:14). Moreover, then all Christians would be false witnesses for God (pseudomartures tou theou) (15:15). Again, without the resurrection, faith is a lie (featuring a different, stronger Greek term: mataia) and the Christian approach has not achieved the forgiveness of our sins (15:17).

Further, if the dead do not rise (15:15b–16), then our loved ones who have died in Christ have perished or are destroyed (apōlonto) and there is no hope for a Christian view of the afterlife (15:18). In sum, all of this means that Christians would be the most miserable and pitiable (eleeinoteroi) of all people, the most pitiful (15:19) if Christ has not been raised from the dead! This is a horribly negative picture at every single turn!

However, then the tide turns completely: since Christ indeed has been raised from the dead, he is the firstfruits of the resurrection to come, culminating in the resurrection of the dead in the last day (15:20)! In a nutshell from 1 Cor 15:12–20: without a risen Jesus, there is no Christianity. Even distinctly Christian ethics are ungrounded and thus have been lost apart from the resurrection (as in 15:32). But with this event and what it entails, the entire Christian worldview, theology, practice, and more follows! Then the remainder of this chapter patterns the resurrection bodies of believers on Jesus’s resurrection body (15:35–57).

Besides the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Cor 15:1–20, other key passages could be mentioned as illustrating the centrality of Jesus’s resurrection in the New Testament, not only in Paul109 but also in other biblical writings.110 But the texts mentioned here should serve the purpose of establishing this essential theme.

(2) The next indication that the death and resurrection of Jesus occupy the central position in the New Testament is in addition to major passages that clearly state the overall importance of this event, such as those texts above. In contrast to the passages described above that broadly proclaim the centrality of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, other New Testament texts offer a closer examination of this theme. On most occasions, the factual portion of the gospel message is mentioned more or less as a whole without parsing out the specific factual details, and a faith commitment is encouraged in light of this offer of salvation. But sometimes the factual side of the gospel message is spelled out, in which cases the resurrection is precisely in the middle of the equation.

Before providing the key creedal tradition, Paul initially reminds his audience in 1 Cor 15:1–2 that he had preached the gospel in Corinth and that whoever had responded in faith was thereby saved. Then in verses 3–5, Paul sets forth what might be seen as the component parts on the factual side of the gospel: that Christ died for sins, had been buried, rose from the dead, and appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. Other appearances are mentioned as well.

In the very first Christian sermons in Acts 2–5, 10, and 13, including the exceptionally early sermon summaries, not a single one leaves out Jesus’s titles or descriptions, such as Christ (2:36; 3:18–19; 4:10; 10:36),111 Lord (2:25, 31, 36; 10:36; cf. 4:33), Son of God (13:33), the author of life (3:15), Savior (5:31; 13:23), and among the most important, Jesus being seated at the right hand of God (2:33–35; 5:31). Each of these sermons emphasizes most of all the death and resurrection of Jesus.112

Elsewhere, other examples include the unpacking of the gospel facts. In the succinct summary in 2 Tim 2:8, 11, the gospel message includes Christ being descended from David, dead, and raised from the dead. A chapter earlier, in dying Christ is said to have destroyed death and by being raised from the dead he introduces life and immortality for others (2 Tim 1:8–11).

Two early creedal traditions are among the chief witnesses here. In Rom 1:1–7, Paul repeats an early confession in verses 3–4 that calls Jesus the Son of God with power (a very significant phrase regarding the deity of Jesus),113 Christ, and Lord by virtue of his resurrection from the dead. In the creedal statement in Rom 10:9, the gospel message is also stated very succinctly: Jesus ought to be confessed for salvation as the Lord in light of faith in his death and resurrection.

As a brief additional note, confessing Jesus as Lord in Rom 10:9 is the apex of a number of claims which indicate that Jesus was regarded in earliest Christianity with a particularly strong belief in his deity. As to the specific meaning of “Lord” here, Paul incorporates in the same context (10:10–13) this notion of calling on Jesus as Lord with the Septuagint version of Joel 2:32.114 The encouragement is that whomever calls upon the most sacred name of God (kyrios in the Greek but literally YHWH in the original Hebrew) will be saved. Bauckham states firmly that this “makes a very serious identification of Jesus with YHWH.”115 Hurtado offers similar comments, speaking of this same passage in Rom 10:9 (along with others) that “it represents the inclusion of Jesus with God as recipient of public, corporate cultic reverence.”116

Bauckham refers to this and other similar references as the “divine identity” of Jesus with God, which “is already a fully divine Christology, maintaining that Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the unique and eternal identity of God.” Based on these considerations, Bauckham asserts, “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.”117 As mentioned above, this entire high Christology is linked inextricably in Rom 10:9 and elsewhere to the death and resurrection of Jesus as indispensable and inseparable components.

The first two indications here, taken together, provide a number of clear angles on what has been referred to often in this volume as the homologia, or the very earliest, central message that emerged after Jesus’s resurrection. We have remarked that the chief topic of the creedal traditions is Christological in nature. The gospel proclamation of the Son of God who died, rose from the dead, and appeared again is in turn the center of this Christological message. The creeds could be said to be the husks that house the homologia.

(3) As seen above, the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was expressed in the New Testament through both more general key texts as well as specific passages that define the actual content of the gospel message itself. Beyond these categories, we turn now to more evidential indications of this centrality. The truth of these messages was indicated by Paul’s own eyewitness testimony plus the testimony of other leaders as well. This has already been discussed above and will only be mentioned briefly in this context. Paul met the apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem in about AD 35 (Gal 1:18–20). Later he traveled to meet with these same two apostles plus John to discuss the gospel message (Gal 2:1–10). As Paul states elsewhere, this topic of the person, death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the risen Christ occupied the most important Christian message (1 Cor 15:3). Paul adds here that the other apostles were teaching this same gospel message as he was (1 Cor 15:11).

These meetings involved the four most influential early Christian leaders, each of whom were apostles and eyewitnesses, all discussing the truth and proclamation of the gospel message. As we have observed from numerous angles, the death and resurrection of Jesus occupied the centermost places of distinction here.

(4) Likewise, these two meetings along with most primitive creedal traditions and sermon summaries (the vast majority of which also focus on the gospel content) all date exceptionally early. Up through Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem, potentially even the majority of the creedal traditions were already in existence, placing them within the first five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion.118 As already pointed out, conclusions such as these are conceded far more commonly in the research. Reginald Fuller even remarked in 1979 that essential items such as the factual content of the gospel preaching and teaching were passed on to Paul by AD 35 at the “very latest” when he visited Jerusalem on his initial trip. Even in 1979, Fuller attests that this was the “consensus” position among scholars.119 Much more recently, James Ware has confirmed this same “almost universal scholarly consensus.”120

Moreover, even by the time of Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem, many of the creeds that he recorded later still predate the earliest New Testament writings, such as 1 Thessalonians. This is extraordinarily early indeed. As historian Paul Barnett points out, “In terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.”121

(5) Another indication of the strength of the eyewitness and early testimony for the reports of Jesus’s death and resurrection is that this information is well attested by multiple independent sources. Though we did not pursue an exhaustive list, the sources above consisted of early creedal traditions and sermon summaries, Mark (including Matthew, Luke, and Acts), Q, M, L, John, a few of Paul’s epistles, at least three other canonical epistles (according to the way critical scholars count them), Revelation, and the noncanonical Gospel of Peter. This makes a total of at least a dozen sources for these events. That is a good number of texts that witness to the centrality of the gospel message.

(6) Besides the independent sources that attest to the centrality of the gospel report, there is also a decent representation of multiple literary forms that do similarly. The idea from critical scholars is that several such differing types of literature help to indicate teachings that more likely were spread throughout the early church traditions. In this case, we observed Gospel narratives (from both the canonical texts plus the Gospel of Peter), the many early creeds and sermon summaries plus Q sayings, the various epistolary mentions even outside the New Testament, as well as an apocalyptic account in Revelation, for a total of at least five forms.

Two Objections to the Centrality of Jesus’s Death and Resurrection

It was remarked earlier that questions on some fronts had been raised by other critical scholars regarding the centrality and the very early teaching regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus. Two examples will be mentioned.

Initially, Leslie Houlden raises several lines of questioning as to whether Jesus’s resurrection was of central import, at least in the Gospels and a few of the later New Testament Epistles. He charges that this event was surely not needed to augment either the spread of Christianity or its continuance, since many religious movements have been established and grown very well on other grounds. Further, while “the fact that a half dozen of the shorter books contain no mention of the resurrection need not detain us,” it may still indicate that “early Christian minds were not consumed by it.” Even while conceding that for Paul, according to several key passages like 1 Cor 15:12–19, the resurrection was of central importance, Houlden still muses that Paul’s emphasis on a spiritual resurrection body for both Jesus and believers subtracts something of the emphasis.122

Though recognizing the bodily resurrection emphasis in the Gospels except for a few comments by Mark, Houlden spends the most time trying to point out that this event remains “less central” even in the three Synoptic Gospels. He does admit that for Luke the resurrection takes on more meaning, particularly in Acts, where “indeed it appears as the very heart of the preaching” as it comes to the forefront of various texts time and again. But even there Houlden wonders why Luke appears to struggle continually with validating the resurrection and is willing to move past this occurrence to Jesus’s “ascended glory.” While John spends some time on the resurrection, Houlden states that the Fourth Gospel emphasizes that faith is better than sight, thereby diverting its readers away from the event itself. In short, for Houlden the Gospels report important things about Jesus’s resurrection to be sure, but as a whole their chief interest is elsewhere: they are more concerned with Jesus as Savior, securing salvation for those who act in faith.123

It would take many pages to respond in detail to Houlden, in that there are so many misunderstandings and false conundrums in his essay, and many of these would take time to explain in more detail than he took to spell them out somewhat superficially in the first place. But it will have to suffice here to respond with a number of short comments, leaving the reader to fill out the specifics from the relevant details in the remainder of this study.

For starters, unlike with some researchers, the quick spread of the church is only mentioned in passing here and there in Houlden’s essay, but not as any sort of special evidence for the event of the resurrection, since other movements have spread quickly as well. But we will let that pass. Certainly some later New Testament Epistles do not mention the resurrection (seven in total, depending on the meaning of a few verses).124 However, over half of these writings are only a single chapter long and most of them are focused very narrowly in their scope. Even so, several of these texts make comments that still imply the resurrection. Houlden is correct in his comment not to press this matter very far. As for Paul, the discussion about this apostle’s view of Jesus’s resurrection body along with that of believers has progressed much further in the more than two decades since Houlden wrote these comments, and the tide has turned against his position with regard to the actual data.125 But even if Paul’s view was that Jesus still actually rose in a spiritual body, that remains a resurrection view along with its corresponding centrality. That would not be a denial of the resurrection.126

Houlden’s discussion concerning the Gospels frankly needs much help and reworking. Since when does Matthew’s concern to refute the disciples’ theft of Jesus’s dead body, or the Gospel’s attempt “to serve this-worldly ends of teaching and apologetic,” militate against the teaching of the resurrection when these defenses appear precisely during a resurrection appearance and therefore concern this event? Houlden basically concedes the resurrection emphasis in Luke and John, but again finds fault with the treatments. But how does Luke’s validation of Jesus’s Passion and resurrection quoting the Old Testament, his anxiety over presenting the bodily nature of Jesus’s appearances, or his interest in Jesus’s ascension to glory, strive against the Third Gospel’s emphasis on Jesus being raised from the dead? And are we truly to accept that John steers a path away from Jesus’s resurrection by being more concerned about Jesus’s person, death, and the need for faith?127

What must be kept in mind here is that Houlden thinks that all of these ideas serve to indicate that the resurrection is not central in the Gospels. How can this possibly be the case? Are we truly to accept that the items he mentions are opposite concerns? He considers a plethora of notions: whether the topic of the resurrection is opposed to answering natural resurrection challenges, that the subject may lead to teaching or presenting apologetic motifs, Old Testament confirmation of these same truths, concerns for evidencing the bodily nature of these appearances, along with Jesus’s death, saviorhood, and faith. It must look strange to Houlden that Paul mentions every one of these topics in one way or another in the major New Testament text on centrality, namely, 1 Cor 15:3–20. So Houlden’s objections apparently would have been news to Paul as well!

Perchance we can extend to Houlden some semblance of a small olive branch if we interpret him this way: perhaps a semblance of what seems to be rather grossly misplaced concerns are more simply the age-old view that faith is being juxtaposed to evidence or facts, such that the latter are not thought to concern the same subject. While this would not solve the problem entirely, and while the issues raised above still appear to be a strained interpretation throughout, it softens the blow somewhat. If this is not the angle Houlden meant, and particularly if it is not even close, then more serious difficulties remain perhaps now with a few others.

A second objection to resurrection centrality in the New Testament is the notion that, for certain pockets of Christians, this event was not at the center of their radar. In particular, this objection is usually raised by rather radical scholars who generally speak of writings such as the Q sayings in Matthew and Luke as well as the Gospel of Thomas. Although these scholars hold that these works are only collections of sayings that do not address the purported teachings and actions of Jesus, these critics often still hold or are at least open to the position that the communities who were responsible for assembling these teachings did not know about Jesus’s death, let alone his resurrection and appearances. Thus, these themes were not necessarily at the center of these groups’ interest in Jesus.128

Aspects of this second view are addressed at several points in this study, but the majority of critical scholars oppose these positions for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because of serious questions regarding their dating and interpretation of Q and the Gospel of Thomas and due to the almost unanimous persuasion that there is highly significant data for accepting the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection in the New Testament teachings. These critical testimonies will be indicated directly below.

As for more specific considerations behind the majority critical rejection of these radical stances, several critical factors will be mentioned here just briefly.

(a) Since the two foremost sources that are most employed in such critiques are the sayings documents Q and the Gospel of Thomas, how is it known that traditional interpretations of events such as Jesus’s death and resurrection were either unfamiliar to, or even largely ignored, or even rejected by these communities? Though there may be some textual hints, the extent of Q is unknown without a complete source for assessment. Further, according to key researchers, both Q as well as the Gospel of Thomas apparently went through many additions, editorial changes, and textual adjustments that would certainly have a bearing on their dates of composition, potential contradictions within the documents, their homogeneity, and so on.129

For example, while often noting the likely existence of the Q sayings, many major critical scholars recognize several additional exacerbating problems, like the original date and extent of the earliest composition, the doubtful existence of a Q community, stages in the Q sayings based on radical presuppositions, or whether Q is an actual Gospel or simply a sayings document. Particularly for the purposes here, many scholars deny any warrant for asserting that it can be known whether or not the importance or centrality of Jesus’s death or resurrection has been denied in Q. The conclusions regarding these questions are crucial but are anything but straightforward judgments yielding clear responses.130 Raymond Brown speaks of the status that some give Q that “betrays a dubious confidence that the total knowledge/faith of the Q author can be known from our reconstruction of the document.”131 Meier retorts regarding the chief matter before us in this study, commenting that the critical thesis that the Q group had no “knowledge of or interest in Jesus’ death and resurrection is simply not verified by the data at our disposal.”132

(b) The incipit (the opening sentence) in the Gospel of Thomas states that the person who is speaking in these 114 sayings is “the living Jesus” (Iēsous ho zōn; cf. also sayings 52, 59, 111; see also Rev 1:17–18 where the same Greek words ho zōn clearly indicate Jesus’s death and resurrection). Recent scholarship is split on the issue of whether or not this incipit was meant to indicate that it was the risen Jesus who uttered these key words, but suffice it to say that a number of even very critical scholars raise the possibility that this may be the case.133 Even the members of the Jesus Seminar attest that the Gospel of Thomas “assigns all sayings to the ‘living’ Jesus, which may mean the risen Jesus.”134 If the resurrected Jesus potentially could be depicted as the one who is speaking in this work, then this outlook would obviously change our understanding of the role of Jesus’s resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas. Though this is still presently an unsettled question, the possibilities are worth pointing out.

(c) Of the two major sayings sources, Q is dated earlier than the Gospel of Thomas. Q would necessarily predate Matthew and Luke, while the Gospel of Thomas is often dated from about AD 90 to 150.135 On the other hand, the early creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries predate these two sources by at least a couple of decades, and most likely many more decades at least in the case of the Gospel of Thomas, with the consensus scholarly view placing them by AD 35 at the latest, as pointed out elsewhere in this study.136 Even more radical scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar members, acknowledge this difference in spite of their dating these two oral works far earlier than most other scholars.137

(d) Further, while the authors and origins of Q and the Gospel of Thomas are unknown and can only be guessed, it has been shown in this study and agreed upon by critical scholars that the early creeds and sermon summaries are traceable to eyewitness testimony and the earliest traditions. As Allison emphasizes in the context of discussing Q and these earlier creedal teachings in 1 Cor 15:5, the concept of Jesus’s resurrection appearances “must go back to people who knew Jesus himself and were part of the earliest Jerusalem community, and this is all that matters in the present discussion.”138

(e) The traditional canonical teachings regarding the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection appearances are confirmed by multiple independent sources, such as the early creeds and Acts sermon summaries, Paul’s Epistles, all four Gospels, as well as the later epistles, the apostolic fathers, and the book of Revelation. Nothing of this nature attests to the veracity of Q and the Gospel of Thomas.

(f) These same traditional canonical teachings are likewise supported by multiple forms, as just argued above. Without attempting to be exhaustive, we observed the Gospel narratives (from both the canonical texts as well as noncanonical writings such as the Gospel of Peter), the many early creeds and sermon summaries plus a few Q sayings, the various epistolary mentions including some references from the apostolic fathers,139 as well as an apocalyptic mention in Revelation. This is a varied collection, indicating a broad cross section of first-century traditions.

(g) Even beyond all these particular problems with Q and the Gospel of Thomas that often keep hard conclusions to a minimum, plus the far stronger considerations that support the traditional views, there still remain all the New Testament sources, especially from the four Gospels and Paul’s Epistles, that argue for both the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection in general plus the specific salvation data in particular. True, any putative Gospel of Thomas audience would no doubt reject many of these texts, but the chief point being made here is that the far better established orthodox texts oppose the alternate plans of salvation, and that clearly favors the former teachings.

All of these counterarguments above provoke a serious overall inquiry. The minority, more radical scholarly positions today on Q and especially the Gospel of Thomas appear to be opposed by all of these challenges above, but with little or no accompanying evidence with which to eliminate these objections and establish their own alternate views, especially when the critiques are even admitted by those of other opinions. Yet they clearly get the worst of the comparison regarding supporting texts and historical arguments on behalf of the opposing canonical view. Moreover, many more scholars think other evidential considerations indicate that Q and the Gospel of Thomas actually do not deny the centrality of the death and resurrection message of Jesus in the first place, or at least that there is not enough information to answer these issues. Given all of these considerations, the question, then, is how can the views on behalf of the more radical minority alternative readings concerning Q and the Gospel of Thomas hope to show that their thesis is the superior position?

Scholarly Research

Our initial consideration was the state of the textual, historical, and other data and where that stands on the centrality of Jesus’s death and resurrection in the New Testament documents. It is precisely because the best data appear to support strongly the side of the more traditional positions on these issues that the vast majority of critical scholars (even very critical ones) still favor the centrality of these subjects as easily the chief focus of the gospel claims in earliest Christianity. They hold these views whatever their own personal scholarly views are on the subject.

Beginning with some of the more radical scholars to make the above point, the critical agreement here can be indicated further by a representative survey. Ingo Broer thinks that after Jesus’s death, the inward experiences of the original disciples were the key from the beginnings of Christianity and provided assurance for Jesus’s followers that God had confirmed Jesus’s teachings.140 According to Jesus Seminar cofounder Robert Funk, the “Resurrection was the centerpiece of a comprehensive compensatory scheme.”141 Further, that Jesus “was now risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God became the cornerstone of the confession that he was the son of God.”142 Borg agrees that “the resurrection of Jesus . . . [is] central to the New Testament.”143

Helmut Koester arrives from a slightly different angle in that the resurrection and the appearances were the “catalyst” that prompted the early Christian missionary activity.144 Even Jack Kent reports, “According to the Gospel writers the central message of the disciples changed from the teachings of the historical Jesus to their belief that Jesus of Nazareth had been actually resurrected from the dead. The disciples were now changed into apostles and they went forth to preach the good news.”145 Hans Werner Bartsch makes it clear that 1 Cor 15:3–7 plainly confirms that the Christian faith arose at Easter, due to Jesus’s appearances, with the first Christians believing in the Lord Jesus Christ because of these events.146 The resulting faith began with a functional Christology that soon became an ontological Christology.147

For J. K. Elliott, “it is a matter of historic fact that the Christian church owes its foundation to the belief that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day after his death and burial.”148 After commenting on Jesus’s death, which occupies one-third of Mark’s Gospel and half of the Gospel of John, John A. T. Robinson points out that the death and resurrection of Christ is of “decisive importance” for the early Christians, as this message “dominates” the early preaching.149 Historian Michael Grant attests, “Without this certainty that Jesus Christ had risen, there would never have been a Christian church at all.”150 Grant also observes that the resurrection is “an indispensable and undetachable part of the Christian religion. . . . This has always seemed to be the case, from the very moment at which the event was first believed to have occurred.”151

Helmut Merklein details an early form of messianic Christology that may have marked the beginning of the oldest form of that belief in the Aramaic-speaking congregations. These believers consistently placed the salvation event of Jesus’s death and resurrection at the center of the Christian faith, which may have marked the early development of an explicit Christology where the risen one was the Messiah and the Son of God, as well as being related to the Son of Man concept.152 Werner Georg Kümmel likewise holds that it was the experiences that the disciples believed were appearances of the risen Jesus that catapulted them to faith in Jesus Christ, as his mission had been confirmed by God.153

Even moving from the earliest church forward to the present, the centrality of the resurrection could hardly be stated more forcefully than by Hans Küng: “Christianity begins with Easter. Without Easter there would be no gospel, not a single narrative, not a letter in the New Testament. Without Easter, Christendom would have no belief in Christ, no proclamation of Christ, nor any Church, any divine worship, any mission.”154 In spite of his strong skepticism on the nature of the appearances, Willi Marxsen’s opening comment in a major volume on the subject echoes Küng, referring to Jesus’s resurrection as playing “the decisive part” in the present-day church and its theology. Indeed, if there is “uncertainty” or “obscurity” on this matter, “there is a risk of jeopardizing more or less everything to which a Christian clings.”155

Many other skeptical scholars could be mentioned here beyond those just surveyed.156 Many major moderate to conservative scholars also agree regarding the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus in early Christianity. N. T. Wright is one of the most quotable researchers here: “The question of Jesus’ resurrection lies at the heart of the Christian faith. There is no form of early Christianity known to us—though there are some that have been invented by ingenious scholars—that does not affirm at its heart that after Jesus’ shameful death God raised him to life again.”157 Or again: “Christianity began as a resurrection movement . . . there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief. . . . It was the central driving force, informing the whole movement.”158 Lastly: “It is totally absurd to say that Christianity from [the earliest times] didn’t make the resurrection of Jesus central.” Rather, the exact opposite is the case—the resurrection cast its light over the Gospels to such an extent that we sometimes have problems trying to differentiate what happened and how things got interpreted in light of the resurrection.159

In his celebrated critiques of the Jesus Seminar, Luke Timothy Johnson sounds a note similar to Wright’s message: “Despite the efforts of some contemporary scholars to hypothesize forms of a ‘Jesus movement’ that continued after his death with no belief in his resurrection, there is no positive evidence for any such movement.” Continuing, Johnson emphasizes, “Our earliest Christian writings are diverse in many and important respects, but they are in agreement on this point: Jesus who was crucified is now the living Lord.”160 Reginald Fuller carries forth this same tune: “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the central claim of the church’s proclamation. There was no period when this was not so.”161 Following up on this comment, Fuller continues, “At the very earliest stage in the tradition, the resurrection events were . . . proclaimed.”162

For Jean-Marie Guillaume, Jesus’s resurrection is the very center of the historical gospel message.163 According to F. X. Durrwell, in the book of Acts where the definition of an apostle is being a witness to Jesus’s resurrection, “the whole apostolate is bathed in the glow of Easter.”164 Walter Künneth makes a detailed study of Jesus’s death and resurrection as the grounds for salvation as well as Christian theology as a whole.165

Jürgen Moltmann takes a straightforward angle: “It is in fact true that the Christian faith stands or falls with Christ’s resurrection.”166 After a similar remark years earlier, Moltmann observes, “In the New Testament there is no faith that does not start a priori with the resurrection of Jesus.”167 In speaking of the disciples’ original experience of the risen Jesus, Ulrich Wilckens commented, “If it were not for this experience Christianity would undoubtedly not have come into existence.”168 Such comments could be multiplied several times over from numerous other scholars, even beyond these listed here.169

Beyond the New Testament as a whole, skeptical scholars also recognize that especially for the apostle Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus stood at the center of the Christian faith. Hans Conzelmann points out, “The proclaiming of his resurrection is not supplementary to some other kind of proclamation of Christ, but is identical with it.”170 Funk asserts that it was “the death of Jesus and his appearance to Paul in a vision on the Damascus road that became the focal point of Paul’s gospel . . . the two incidents that comprise the formal content of his gospel.”171 Borg likewise recognizes this centrality for Paul,172 as does Jewish scholar Dan Cohn-Sherbok.173

Alan Segal affirms that “Paul’s central proclamation” is that Jesus is Lord and that believers share by faith in his death and resurrection.174 Wedderburn explains that, for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus is “something that is integral to the Christian faith.”175 Kent freely admits this truth for Paul as well: Paul “founded churches based on his idea of belief in the resurrected Jesus Christ.”176 Kent adds later that “Paul’s most important and bedrock theme was his deeply felt and absolute faith that Jesus of Nazareth was ‘resurrected’ from the dead by God and thus became Jesus Christ.”177

On a more moderate to conservative side, Wright points out graphically that Paul “had woven resurrection so thoroughly into his thinking and practice that if you take it away the whole thing unravels in your hands.”178 For F. X. Durrwell, Paul’s apostleship was also grounded upon the appearance to him by the resurrected Jesus.179 G. B. Caird points out that after his conversion due to a resurrection appearance of Jesus Christ, Paul “rapidly built it into the structure of his theology.”180 Stephen T. Davis states these matters in rather succinct terms: “The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the heart of Paul’s message” and especially of the center of the gospel that he preached.181 Thorwald Lorenzen attests that for Paul, “the encounter with the risen Christ forms the very foundation of his life and apostleship.”182

In sum, the overall witness of the New Testament testifies to the centrality of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection as being the very heart of the Christian message. This teaching is very strong and is observed in a wide variety of both theological venues as well as practical ministry situations. The great majority of scholarly testimonies proclaims the same. Rather amazingly, this is even the case among those researchers who do not actually accept the historicity of the event themselves.

Conclusion

This survey of the last four historical facts completes the discussion in this study of both the shorter list of “minimal facts” studies earlier with the slightly longer group of “accepted” or “known” historical facts, which were treated here. Beginning with the disciples’ disillusionment, despair, and even hopelessness due to their dashed hopes, this study progressed to the earliest preaching having its birth in the city of Jerusalem, to the phenomenon of church growth and Sunday worship featuring the message of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection at the very center and heart of the New Testament proclamation.

After the study of Sunday worship in the early church, an excursus allowed an examination of the usages of the “third” and “first day” in the New Testament writings. The conclusion was that historical events on that initial weekend after the crucifixion of Jesus best accounted for the data over against a theological interpretation involving victories for God’s people over God’s foes.

Being accredited to the vast extent that these historical facts are recognized as such by the nearly unanimous community of critical scholars, this information completes our larger list of documented data that must be considered in any resurrection study. It has been argued throughout this entire study that these facts that are so well established that they are accepted as historical by even the vast majority of skeptical researchers (including atheists, agnostics, adherents to other religions, and various other species of skeptics among them), thus acknowledging the minimal and known/accepted facts. As such, we must push ahead to the most likely conclusions that may be derived from this research.

Notes

1 Both the larger as well as the smaller list have varied slightly in number over the years and publications, depending on the overall circumstances as well as the audience. This smaller listing, for example, has likewise varied from three to seven of these same dozen facts.

2 Over the years very similar arrangements of the data in other publications appeared as well, again varying rather slightly. For example, these lists were utilized in three dialogues with (at that time) the prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew, who did not object to this procedure. Details can be found in Gary R. Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 19–20, 23–27 (see chap. 1, n. 68); Habermas and Flew, Atheist and Theist Dialogue, 2–53 (see chap. 4, n. 5); Habermas and Flew, Did the Resurrection Happen? A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, ed. David Baggett (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 22–54.

3 On this aspect of methodology, see especially Habermas, “Minimal Facts Approach,” 15–26 (see chap. 4, n. 2). As explained throughout this study and elsewhere, sometimes a single fact has been adopted from the longer list with a “+ 1” designation, with this fact always being the empty tomb. It has been designated as such because the empty tomb of Jesus is supported by almost two dozen critically ascertained reasons, as pointed out in the chapter on that subject. This is required for a minimal fact designation. However, the empty tomb lacks the second “minimal facts” criterion, namely, having a strong but not the nearly unanimous verdict that is required for the minimal facts. For this “+ 1” designation, see chapter 3, titled “A Quintet of Facts (4 + 1): The First Two,” in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 48–63 (see chap. 4, n. 2).

4 Such as Habermas, “Minimal Facts Approach,” 18.

5 In other words, we are not including here self-designated scholars who lack the credentials described above. Rather than make a personal critique here, atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes many of the differences between these two groups of critics in his own work, such as Did Jesus Exist?, esp 2–3, 17, 19–34, 167, 194–96, 268 (see chap. 2, n. 15), where many of Ehrman’s criticisms are very strong and sometimes quite biting. Cf. also Gary R. Habermas and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Agnostic Historical Jesus Scholars Decimate the Mythical Jesus Popularists,” Philosophia Christi 18 (2016): 485–95.

6 While a small percentage of critical scholars either holds or at least entertains the possibility of Jesus being buried in a common grave or otherwise, that Jesus was buried somewhere still occurred according to the vast majority of scholars. That Jesus was buried in a private tomb is still held by the highest number of these researchers.

7 Admittedly, as remarked in almost all my writings on this subject, the belief that Jesus’s burial tomb was later found empty is not as widely accepted as are the other facts listed here. However, it is still accepted by a significant majority of contemporary scholars, as we have argued.

8 For details, see these surprising and repeated themes in Matt 28:17b; Luke 24:11, 21a, 37–38; John 20:15b, 19–20, 24–29; cf. John 21:4b with 21:8, 12; as well as the pseudo-Markan appendix in Mark 16:10–11, 13–14, along with the Gos. Pet. 14:1–3.

9 Some commentators, such as Larry Hurtado (along with other influential researchers), think that Jesus took the words of Zech 13:7 as an apt passage where the Old Testament author spoke of a situation that in some sense would soon enough also parallel or typify in a different way what was about to occur to Jesus’s disciples. However, even such a potentially analogous insight by Jesus would not at all dispute the above comment that neither the Old Testament nor Jewish thought in general taught something like the situation which Jesus faced in the desertion of his closest followers along with their later disillusionment and doubt. For these ideas by commentators, see Hurtado, Mark, 241 (see chap. 13, n. 1); and France, Gospel of Mark, 575–76 (see chap. 10, n. 87), where other similar ideas are listed on 575 n. 75.

10 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. chaps. 14–17, cf. also chaps. 10–11 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

11 Keener, Gospel of John, 1:81–139 (see chap. 9, n. 111), with several major conclusions on 139; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 252–83 (see chap. 10, n. 134), such as 269–70, 275, including listing and discussing evidence and alternative positions; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 8–30. Morris then states on 30 that the best conclusion is that the apostle John was indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel.

12 Such as Keener, Gospel of John, 1:114; also 83, 139; Guthrie mentions several options in his New Testament Introduction, 275–76, 278–81.

13 For a potpourri of interlocking considerations along the lines just mentioned above, especially regarding the Gospel of John, compare the conclusions found in Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 165–67 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Dunn, “Let John Be John: A Gospel for Its Time,” in The Gospel and the Gospels, ed. Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 299; Brown, John, 1:xcii–cii, esp. ci–cii (see chap. 9, n. 148); cf. also Brown, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965), esp. 129–31; Dodd, Fourth Gospel (see chap. 9, n. 153), esp. the careful conclusions on 144, 423–32. While R. V. G. Tasker does not think it can be ascertained conclusively that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel, he does conclude in the context of speaking about John the son of Zebedee that this volume “contains . . . the testimony of one of the original apostles to the life and teachings of Jesus.” See Tasker, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11–20, quotation here on 11.

14 Such as the majority views that a common sayings source (designated as Q) plus at least one other witness each was utilized by both Matthew (M) and Luke (L), plus any additional interviewees from Luke’s list that he specifically asserts contained eyewitnesses (autoptai) in Luke 1:1–4, a Greek term indicating that the observations made came from the individual’s own eyes. John is regularly thought to have utilized a miracles source that listed various purported supernatural acts performed by Jesus. According to some researchers, this appears to have been the case for Mark’s Gospel as well. Additionally, Acts is peppered with creedal texts designated as “sermon summaries” that have been discussed other places in this study, chiefly located in the Petrine passages in Acts 1–5, 10 plus the Pauline sermon in Acts 13.

15 The most vexing of the canonical Gospels for which to determine authorship is probably Matthew, and even here surprising conclusions can be found. Though an older essay, see the arguments of C. Stewart Petrie, “The Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’: A Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967): 15–33.

16 See the moving and highly acclaimed study by Alan E. Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Cf. also Matthew Y. Emerson, “He Descended to the Dead” An Evangelical Theology of Holy Saturday (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2019).

17 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 40, 220, 230, 270, quotations on 230 and 270 (see chap. 5, n. 7).

18 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 8 (see chap. 6, n. 129).

19 Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 240–42 (see excursus 1, n. 12); also Spong, Easter Moment, 192 (see chap. 12, n. 25).

20 Hugh Jackson, “The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy,” Journal of Religion 55 (October 1975): quotations on 419–20.

21 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 41, 47; also relevant are 21, 33 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

22 Marxsen, Jesus and Easter, esp. 66–68, quotations on 67 and 69 (see chap. 5, n. 39). Also relevant is Marxsen’s earlier work, Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 66–67 (see chap. 5, n. 39).

23 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84–86 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

24 Hans Küng, Eternal Life?, 94–96, 106–7 (see excursus 2, n. 123).

25 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 39, 41, 45–47, 188, quotation on 47 (see chap. 1, n. 42).

26 Elliott, “First Easter,” 210, 215, 218, 220 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

27 Sheehan, First Coming, 104–5 (see excursus 1, n. 16).

28 Allison, End of the Ages, 164, 166; see also 168 (see chap. 13, n. 34).

29 A representative list of many more scholars across the spectrum, among still many others, would include Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 210 (see chap. 15, n. 89); Doré, “Croire en la résurrection,” 536–37 (see chap. 12, n. 25); Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 215, 217 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 96 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 125, 129 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 276, 278 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1973), 107; Hengel, Atonement, 65 (see chap. 6, n. 86); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2, 82, 100, 101 (see chap. 10, n. 23); O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 115, 118 (see excursus 1, n. 86); Kee, What Can We Know, 45, 59–63 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 108 (see chap. 11, n. 113); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 135, 137 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 120–22, 184, 270 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 124–25, 139 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 22, 36–37, 71–72 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

30 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 145, also 148 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

31 Of course, the apostles could have traveled temporarily out from Jerusalem to preach and teach the gospel message in other geographical areas, such as Peter’s travels to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea (Acts 9:32–10:9, 23–24). Then afterward, Peter returned to his base in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2). For further details on Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to speak with the other apostles, see the chapter in this study on the disciples’ original eyewitness experiences.

32 For a few of the many scholarly sources on the consensus here, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–67, particularly 266; Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, most crucially 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 854–57; Ehrman also agrees on the earliness of Paul’s two visits in Did Jesus Exist?, 144–46. John Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” particularly 582, 584, 587, 589 (see chap. 11, n. 44).

33 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:103–4; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3219–20 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 13. It should be noted here that Barnett dates the crucifixion to 33, thus closing the time gap between that event and this meeting in Galatians 2, making it three years earlier.

34 Whether or not the two main Gospel accounts of Jesus’s first major appearance to the group of his disciples are thought to refer to the same episode in spite of several differing details, they still constitute two separate sources due to the relative independence of John from the Synoptic Gospel tradition.

35 In rather stark contrast to the angel’s prediction in Mark 16:7 regarding an upcoming appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee, each of the appearances in the longer ending of pseudo-Mark presumably occurred in Jerusalem or the environs. These appearances include Jesus’s first appearance to Mary Magdalene probably at or near the empty tomb (16:9), who then went and related this occurrence to Jesus’s disciples, who were still nearby in Jerusalem; another appearance to two disciples walking in the country who must have been just outside of Jerusalem since they also went back and told the disciples (16:12–13, which is quite reminiscent of the trip to the village of Emmaus that is recounted in Luke 24:13–35); and an appearance to the “eleven” disciples who had doubted the testimonies of both Mary Magdalene and the two country travelers (16:14–18), followed by Jesus’s ascension into heaven at an unspecified time and place but seemingly not far away (16:19–20). As an aside, between just the long and short endings of Mark, Luke Timothy Johnson holds that the short ending is “far and away the best attested in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts.” See Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 153–54 (see chap. 4, n. 51).

36 Hurtado states that “nearly all scholars” accept a second-century date or possibly somewhat later for the longer ending; see Hurtado, Mark, 287–88. Details in favor of a second-century date are contained especially in Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985), particularly 167–69; also, France, Gospel of Mark, 687; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 103 (see chap. 10, n. 20).

37 Ehrman opts for an early second-century date for the Gospel of Peter in New Testament, 184. N. T. Wright asserts that the “great majority of scholars” agree that the Gospel of Peter “is dependent upon the canonical gospels.” Wright produces eight characteristics that it is a second-century document, perhaps even late in that century, in Resurrection of the Son of God, 592–96, quotations on 593 (see chap. 6, n. 44); John Meier just mentions the second century in Marginal Jew, 3:79, 121, as does Barnett in Finding the Historical Christ, 41. Darrell Bock dates the Gospel of Peter to the mid-second century in Missing Gospels, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). The more radical Jesus Seminar thinks the Gospel of Peter may have been written in the second half of the first century. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 553 (see chap. 4, n. 84). But Raymond Brown has argued in great detail against this last proposal in that it fails on numerous fronts, leading him also to date the Gospel of Peter to the first half of the second century in “The Gospel of Peter: A Non-Canonical Passion Narrative,” in Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1317–49, esp. 1343 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

38 These collections are mentioned in passages such as Rom 15:25–27, 31b; 1 Cor 16:1–4; and 2 Cor 8:1–9:15.

39 This is observed in Rom 15:25, 26; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 9:1, 12.

40 Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 47–55, quotation on 47.

41 As pointed out by Ehrman as well as others, Tacitus was mistaken with regard to applying this title to Pilate since he was not a procurator but a prefect in Judea. Ehrman, New Testament, 1096–97 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

42 Translation from Church and Brodribb, Complete Works of Tacitus (see chap. 1, n. 31).

43 These sources included Luke–Acts, Matthew (M?), John, the pseudo-Markan addition (most likely second century), the Gospel of Peter (also most likely from the second century), Paul, Josephus (end of the first century), and Tacitus (early second century).

44 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 162 (see chap. 2, n. 35).

45 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 372–75, 397–98, 407, 435–36 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33–34, 38, cf. 175–76 (see chap. 10, n. 94).

46 Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 178–85 (see chap. 2, n. 32); Borg, “The Truth of Easter” in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, ed. Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 87–91, 130–37.

47 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 34–36, 38–40, 220, 237–39, 260, 266–72, cf. 273.

48 Spong, Easter Moment, 88.

49 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 23–32, 34–39, 50–54, 66, 145–46, 156–57, 162–63, 176–79 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 16–18, 29–31, 36–37, 47–49, 54, 132–33, 169–73 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

50 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 130–32, 156–58, 163–64; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 137–40, 183–88, 290–91 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 201, 227–31 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Ehrman, New Testament, 197, 263, 307–8.

51 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 251, 290–91.

52 Geza Vermes, The Passion (New York: Penguin, 2005), 13–14, 116; Vermes, Resurrection, 1–2, 7, 94–105, 120, 141–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 66–67, 92, 95–99, 125–29; for a survey of additional Jewish scholars on this subject, see Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship, 39, 44, 134, 142, 166–67, 201–14 (see chap. 8, n. 7).

53 Examples of additional researchers include the following: Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 100; Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu—Historie und Theologie,” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): 326–27; Hengel, Atonement, 1, 34–39, 65, 69; Dunn, Evidence for Jesus, 67 (see chap. 10, n. 59); Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, esp. chaps. 22, 23 (see chap. 10, n. 17); Brown, Virginal Conception, 78–113; Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:219–20; Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 75 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 226–27 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170 (see chap. 12, n. 34); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 14, 28–30, 42; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 126–27; Harris, Raised Immortal, 38–39 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Williams, Resurrection, 8, 11, 27 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Dawe, Jesus, 107 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 125 (see chap. 8, n. 73).

54 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 96–105 (see chap. 11, n. 37), esp. 101, 105; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138; cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131.

55 Acts 20:6; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10; Did. 14; Ign. Magn. 9 (this reference to “the Lord’s day” is identified in the text itself as the day on which Jesus was raised from the dead, and it is contrasted in the same sentence with the “Sabbaths” that were no longer observed); Barn. 15 (the “eighth day” in this passage is described as the one on which the church met and is also identified as the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. This is contrasted in this same context with the Sabbath. The numeral “eight” may be a reference to the Greek text of John 20:26, when Jesus appeared to Thomas on Sunday, the eighth day—hēmeras oktō—after he was raised from the dead).

56 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. 297, also 579, 594.

57 Acts 1:1–11, 21–26; 2:22–36; 3:13–15, 18; 4:2, 10, 33; 5:29–32.

58 For just a few of these, compare Eph 1:11–14 with 2:4–7; Col 3:1–17; 2 Tim 2:8–13; Heb 7:23–28; 10:11–12, 19–25; 13:20–21; 1 Pet 1:1–5; and Rev 1:4–18; 5:5–14.

59 Though it is difficult to ascertain exactly whose camp these men belonged to, depending on which description—“false” or “brothers”—should be emphasized from Gal 2:3–4! But if Acts 15 describes this same event, as many scholars think is the case, then it is more obvious that this group of Pauline “harassers” were believers, as per the comment in verse 5. Further, the larger group in Acts indicates more so the setting of a church conference or theological discussion. But if these are not the same occasion, the men in Acts 15:5 may still be connected with or at least describe the status of the accusers in Galatians 2 as well, since they were both making roughly the same theological charge.

60 As does Johnson in Writings of the New Testament, 255–57.

61 Of course, views of the possible Pauline authorship number could also fall anywhere between seven and thirteen writings too, and then still another adjustment would have to be made there.

62 Cf. Gos. Thom. 40, 52, 59, 111; Robert M. Grant, Gnosticism: A Source Book of Heretical Writings from the Early Christian Period (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), 183; also 37, 52, 59; Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered, 124 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

63 Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 49.

64 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 397–98, 400, 402, 407, 422–23.

65 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 9.

66 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 131; see 131–33, 137–40, for just a few of the many examples; also, Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 260–63.

67 Hick, Death and Eternal Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), 177.

68 Elliott, “First Easter,” 210.

69 Elliott, 219.

70 Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 127 (see chap. 15, n. 37).

71 Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 197.

72 Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 113 (see chap. 1, n. 43).

73 Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 99–102; Pannenberg, Die Auferstehung Jesu und die Zukunft des Menschen (Munich: Minerva, 1978), 14–17; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 340, cf. 240 (see chap. 5, n. 19); Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, esp. 184–200 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Meier, Marginal Jew, 3:251–52, 625; Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus mystere de salut, 10th ed., 21–29; Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 170; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109–12 (see excursus 1, n. 65); O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 109–10, 118; Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 68 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 226–29, 339–40; Robert H. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 123; Davis, Risen Indeed, 184–85 (see chap. 1, n. 16); Wand, Christianity, 92–94 (see chap. 1, n. 22); Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 164–64 (see excursus 1, n. 19); Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 111 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 103 (see chap. 6, n. 81); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 125; Walter Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung, 6th ed. (Giessen, DEU: Brunnen, 1982), 200–215, 285–86.

74 As mentioned by John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 191 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 823; Elliott, “First Easter,” 210; C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament (London: SCM, 1970), 49; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 324–29. Licona provides a very helpful overview of the original language in the key texts, including his rationale for preferring this view. Besides the scholars listed here, Licona also includes Allison, Bayer, Bruce, and Mettinger as preferring this option (325–29). Of course, as Licona recognizes, the “after three days” references are often found in Jesus’s predictions of his upcoming death and resurrection rather than in the resurrection narratives themselves. In all three references in Mark, the phrase follows directly after Jesus’s comment about his own death. But when used in such a way, it possibly could be that the term after refers not to a period of time beyond the third day, but that it would be three days after the crucifixion. In this sense, Jesus’s meaning could be that he is stating that he would suffer, die, and then in another three days after that death, he would be raised again. Further, this could be the best way to explain why Matthew has no trouble utilizing both the phrases “after the third day” and “on the third day” as in Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:63–64. In the final reference here (Matt 27:63–64), the two phrases are even used together in the same text. Here at least they must have had the same meaning or else it would have been fruitless for the chief priests to only ask for guards just until the third day! It must be remembered too that though Mark states “after three days” in 8:31; 9:31; and 10:34, where each of the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke include the phrase, they write “on the third day.” So it appears to be obvious that these are not different meanings, let alone competing time sequences. In agreement here especially on the last point are both Hurtado, Mark, 142, as well as France, Gospel of Mark, 336–37.

75 Examples of those who take or seem to favor nonhistorical interpretations of these time elements include Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. George W. MacRae, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 256; Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 47; Küng, Eternal Life?, 105; Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 218; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 27; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 140; Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament, 48–50; Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 125; Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” 51–52 (see chap. 15, n. 28). Pheme Perkins seems unsure, concluding that there is not a clear answer to this question in Resurrection, 86, 89–91 (see excursus 2, n. 111). John E. Alsup takes a position between the nonhistorical and historical positions in Post-Resurrection Appearance, 58–59 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

76 Some of these scholars include Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 48–50; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, esp. 321–22; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 823, 861–62; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, from Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 464–65; Alan F. Segal, Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 448; Elliott, “First Easter,” 210; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 15 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Craig, “Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 49–50 (see excursus 2, n. 98), cf. the entire argument on 42–50; for a highly detailed argument on this matter, see also Craig’s volume Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 94–115 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 225, 296, 327; Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, esp. 337 (see chap. 8, n. 70); Metzger, “Methodology,” 18 (see chap. 11, n. 67); Swinburne, Resurrection of God Incarnate, 165–67 (see chap. 7, n. 18); Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 35–40 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Craig L. Blomberg, “Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith,” 101 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

77 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 23–24.

78 Fuller, 24.

79 Fuller, 25.

80 Fuller, 26–27.

81 Borg, Powelson, and Riegert, Lost Gospel Q, 75 (see chap. 8, n. 25), with this saying numbered as Q41.

82 Of course, this also gets into the heart of the discussion mentioned below as to what exactly was the event being spoken of in these passages. See the discussion there.

83 Hans Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: The Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986), 120, 142–44. Again, see the entire discussion of Jesus’s predictions of resurrection and vindication directly below in this chapter.

84 Few critical scholars give more complete summaries of the problems here than does atheist New Testament scholar Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist?, 207–30. A less detailed but also insightful critique from an agnostic New Testament scholar is that by Maurice Casey in Jesus, 1, 19, 230–34, 244 (see chap. 4, n. 41). For an in-depth treatment of many aspects that are involved here, see the two chapters on this subject in this present study. Other quite critical scholars who came to similar views include Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 256 and Crossan in “Response to Robert M. Price,” 85 (see chap. 6, n. 38), where Crossan asserts clearly that “the dying-rising gods have nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus.” Others who also affirm this in this same dialogue are Dunn, who refers to the “savior myth” as “Sad, really,” in “Response to Robert M. Price,” 95 (see chap. 6, n. 40); and Luke Timothy Johnson, who charges that the dying-and-rising-god thesis falls prey to what the early church actually taught about Jesus, as well as being refuted by “the stubborn resistance of certain historical facts” in “Response to Robert M. Price,” 90–92 (see chap. 6, n. 39).

85 Just a few of these include Jonathan Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 4:2535–40; Günter Wagner, Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem von Römer 6, 1–11 Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Zurich: Zwingli, 1962), 282–83; Tryggve Mettinger, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 136–40, 214–5; Metzger, “Methodology,” 13, 18–21.

86 Metzger, “Methodology,” 18.

87 Mark 16:2; Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.

88 The long pseudo-Markan ending written at a later date likewise agrees in placing Jesus’s resurrection early on the first day of the week (Mark 16:9).

89 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–21, 26–30 (see chap. 2, n. 22). Dodd is especially insistent concerning Acts 10:34–43, stating that it is the most likely of the sermon summaries in this book to have had an Aramaic original (20–21, 27–28).

90 Such as Max Wilcox in Semitisms of Acts, 171 (see chap. 9, n. 12), who finds Semitisms not in the Acts sermons as a whole, but in a number of at least potential texts within these sermon summaries.

91 Conzelmann sums up some of the arguments both for and against this view in First Corinthians, 252–54.

92 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102–3.

93 Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 120. Licona makes this point as well in Resurrection of Jesus, 325.

94 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 48–50.

95 Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 256; Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 190–91; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 140; Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 47; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 26–27.

96 William Lane Craig provides a very careful assessment of one of the strongest defenses of the view that the third day is a theological conclusion rather than a historical one, concentrating particularly on the arguments of Karl Lehmann in Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift, Quaestiones Disputatae (Freiburg: Herder, 1968). Lehmann argues on the grounds of many passages in the Old Testament (including Septuagint readings) where events occur on the third day, plus references in Midrash and other rabbinical literature such as the Talmud. Oftentimes, rescue and revival come to Israel or to individuals on the third day. While acknowledging that Lehmann’s case is well documented and even persuasive, Craig moves on to point out several major problems. These critiques include the very damaging comment that the references from the Midrash and the Talmud all postdate the New Testament by hundreds of years each. Increasing the force of this first critique is that Hans Conzelmann, who even prefers a similar view to that of Lehmann, still regards Lehmann’s exceptionally late dates here as alone being enough to dismiss Lehmann’s argument! Nor do these later rabbinical views show up either in Jewish sources from intertestamental times or those of the first century, where the third-day motif as the day of resurrection does not appear at all. There is also no indication that New Testament authors knew of this interpretation. Lastly, if the empty tomb and Jesus’s appearances (however the latter are construed) were actual events, this moves these occurrences into the driver’s seat as the best sense of the third-day teachings. See Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 100–115. Conzelmann’s comments on Lehmann’s view are found in the German edition of his commentary, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 302, as well as in the English translation of First Corinthians, 256.

97 As with the early creedal traditions such as 1 Cor 15:3–7, plus the Acts sermon summaries among other early reports that are explored elsewhere in this study, buttressed further by Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem to ascertain the truth of the gospel message in Gal 1:18–20 and 2:1–10 (cf. especially Paul’s direct comment in 1 Cor 15:11), Paul’s own testimony in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, and so on, all before the dates of the Gospels.

98 These eyewitness data begin with Paul’s personal testimony regarding his own appearance just mentioned above. Additionally, Paul received more indispensible eyewitness testimony from Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and later the apostle John on the two occasions of Galatians 1 and 2, presumably regarding their own appearances while they were expressing the contours of the gospel message in these two meetings. Again, Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor 15:11 specifically told of the other eyewitnesses’ firsthand experiences with the risen Jesus. Further, there is also additional accurate testimony regarding Jesus’s appearances that may be garnered from the authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, given what is increasingly known concerning any reliable sources they may have utilized.

99 Such as Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34; 12:1–12; Luke 22:15–20//1 Cor 11:24–25; Mark 14:18–28 (plus parallels). Jesus predicts his death by itself in Mark 10:45; 14:32–40; and Luke 13:32–33. For specifics see the excellent discussion in Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, particularly 284–302.

100 Many discussions have ensued as to whether Luke also had Jesus’s death and resurrection in mind in this text. Doctoral dissertations have been written on the responses. I. H. Marshall argues in the affirmative here, in agreement with Matthew’s rendering in Commentary on Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 485; cf. Craig A. Evans, Luke, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 188. Licona also agrees, largely based on the research of Hans Bayer, who argued in his own dissertation and elsewhere that the “sign of Jonah” in several pre-Christian Jewish texts refers to Jonah’s resuscitations from death. Plus, Luke does refer to Jonah’s actions in question here as a “sign,” hence the presumed agreement with what Matthew makes explicit. See Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 292n55. Not all agree here, as in the rendition in Borg, Powelson, and Riegert, Lost Gospel Q, 75. At any rate, Matthew’s response in this text is clear.

101 That both Matthew and Luke responded in the same manner this time by referring to “the sign of Jonah,” especially given Matthew’s earlier expansion of this reference to refer to Jesus’s death and resurrection in 12:38–40, would appear to raise the likelihood of this best fitting Luke’s response as well, especially given the additional reasons listed in the previous footnote.

102 We have already remarked earlier that some scholars take the angel’s comment to the women at the empty tomb to “go tell . . . Peter” to be a reference to the appearance to the chief disciple, as in Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:3–5.

103 Remarkably, these items and the progression from one to the next in the conclusions of Matthew and Luke sound somewhat similar to Paul’s list in 1 Cor 15:12–20 of what would otherwise be lost, apart from the resurrection!

104 Martin Kähler famously remarked, “To state the matter somewhat provocatively, one could call the Gospels passion narratives with extended introductions.” See Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1896), 80n11.

105 Perhaps this also has something to do with the remarks made earlier in this chapter as to why there are “flash ahead” looks in the Gospels to times when Jesus will no longer be present with the disciples, as in Matt 16:18; 18:17–19; or Mark 10:38–39.

106 Such as John 13:1, 33; 14:1–3, 18–19, 28–30; 16:5–7, 16–22, 28; cf. 17:13.

107 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:81 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 169; Vernon H. Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 145 (see chap. 8, n. 70); Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 22, 36, 94 (see chap. 11, n. 14).

108 Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 108–9.

109 Like Rom 6:1–14; 8:9–11; 2 Cor 4:7–18; Phil 3:10–21; 1 Thess 4:13–14, for examples.

110 Through the entire book of Hebrews, the sustained argument revolves around Jesus currently being superior to the Jewish high priests, prophets, and all others precisely because he was raised from the dead (13:20–21) and hence is alive at present to make ongoing intercession for the saints. Other important passages include 1 Pet 1:3–5 and Rev 5:1–14.

111 Though the title “Christ,” or Messiah, is one example here that often does not include the indication of deity among its range of meanings. Christ is paired with “Lord” in Acts 2:36 and especially Acts 10:36, but even this does not require the term “Christ” to mean deity. But it can have such a meaning. The juxtaposition of titles in Rom 1:3–4 comes much closer to deity.

112 Acts 2:23–32, 36; 3:14–15, 26; 4:10–11; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:27–37.

113 For instance, see Simon J. Gathercole, “What Did the First Christians Think about Jesus?,” particularly 103–6 (see excursus 1, n. 57).

114 In the Septuagint this verse is Joel 3:5.

115 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 196 (see excursus 1, n. 95). Cf. other texts in Paul that similarly compare Jesus with YHWH, such as 1 Cor 1:21; 2:16; 10:26; 2 Cor 10:17; see Bauckham, 129, 185–86, 191–97.

116 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 197–206 (see excursus 1, n. 95), quotation on 199, but also including many additional strong and powerful insights. Bauckham quotes approvingly Hurtado’s discussion here in Jesus and the God of Israel, 129.

117 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, quotations on page x. For other relevant references and discussion here, see ix–xii, 6, 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68. As Oxford University professor G. B. Caird stated quite similarly, “This will in turn lead us to an astonishing conclusion: the highest Christology of the New Testament is also its earliest.” New Testament Theology, 343 (see chap. 11, n. 17).

118 Some of the specific details are supplied by Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 22, 27, 92–93, 130–32, 140–41, 144–46, 155–58, 170–72, 249–51, 254, 260–63, 290–91; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

119 Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94 (see chap. 11, n. 46).

120 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475.

121 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210 (see chap. 1, n. 23).

122 Leslie Houlden, “The Resurrection and Christianity,” Theology 99 (1996): 198–202, quotation on 200; also, Houlden, “The Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1993), esp. 61 on Paul. Somewhat similar is A. Collins, “Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–20 (see excursus 2, n. 24).

123 Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 202–5, with the three quotations above being located on pages 202, 203, and 204; Houlden, “Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” 62, 64–65.

124 Those epistles that are often named are 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude.

125 Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend,” 78–92 (see chap. 4, n. 17).

126 See the chapter in volume 2 of this study, plus other discussions on the objective-vision thesis.

127 Houlden, “Resurrection and Christianity,” 203–5; Houlden, “Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” 62, 64–65.

128 Different angles on this objection are found in Mack, Lost Gospel, 5, 8, 43, 247 (see chap. 8, n. 25); Mack, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, History and Theory 28 (1989): 218; Price, Deconstructing Jesus, 56 (see excursus 2, n. 106); A. Collins, “The Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–20.

129 A major source defending many of these aspects of Q is John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, though he also admits some of these caveats in Excavating Q: The History and Settings of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 1, 142, 317, 388, 394–96. A searching critique across many of these areas is Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, esp. 218–21, 226–43, 252, 256–57. A defense of some of the more distinctive critical views regarding The Gospel of Thomas is that by Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered, 127–56, 176–79. Another major evaluation of this and similar theses is Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, 452–85.

130 Besides the many cautions and critiques issued by Hurtado already mentioned above, see also John Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today: Through Dialectical Negation to a Positive Sketch,” Interpretation 50 (1996): 357–59; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:116, and especially the lengthy list of questions concerning Q raised by Meier on 177–181, even though he accepts the general thesis; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 41; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” particularly 426, 442 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Dale Allison Jr., “A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 651–58; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 244n180 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Gerald O’Collins, “The Resurrection: The State of the Question,” in The Resurrection: An International Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 18.

131 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:478n23.

132 Meier, “Dividing Lines in Jesus Research Today,” 359.

133 James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982); Marcus Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” Bible Review 10 (1994): 49; Grant, Gnosticism, 183; other relevant comments include 37, 52, 59. On the other hand, Simon Gathercole, in an erudite commentary of over 700 pages on the Gospel of Thomas, notes the scholarly difference of opinion and seems to think that either view could be the case, but seems to lean to the position that the “living Jesus” in the incipit probably does not represent the risen Jesus. See Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 191–93.

134 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 398 (see chap. 2, n. 19).

135 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, dates the Gospel of Thomas between AD 90 and 160 (473). Darrell Bock dates Thomas from the late first century to the early second century, with most of it being later within this range (61, 63, 219). Bock also notes that most researchers reject the radical dates mentioned above (61–62) and date the “bulk” of Thomas to the second century (61, 63). Page numbers from Bock, Missing Gospels, also 7. Mack even dates Thomas to AD 90 with some relation to what he calls “Q2” at 65; see Mack, Lost Gospel, 259 (chart).

136 For just two critical sources among the many already cited, see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 111, 130–31, 144–46, 251, 261–62; Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 93–94.

137 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 18 (chart), plus esp. 454; Mack, Lost Gospel, 259 (chart).

138 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 243–45, quotation at 244n80.

139 Such as 1 Clem. 24–25, 42; Ign. Eph. 20; Magn. 11; Trall. 9; Phld. Incipit, 8; Pol. Phil. 1–2, 8.

140 Broer, ‘Der Herr ist wahrhaft auferstanden’ (Lk 24,34): Biblische und systematische Beiträge zur Entstehung des Osterglaubens (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 60–61.

141 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 275.

142 Funk, 40.

143 Borg, “Truth of Easter,” 137.

144 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.

145 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 48.

146 Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 180. An interesting comparison can be made with another earlier article by Bartsch, which investigates attempts to separate the resurrection appearances from the empty tomb (16–18), resurrection appearances as legitimation formulas (19, 26), the importance of apocalyptic terminology concerning the resurrection providing a theme of hope (22, 27) but still dealing with the theme of the early Christians’ functional approach to Christology from the resurrection appearances, moving later to ontological concerns (as with 23). Bartsch, “Der Ursprung des Osterglaubens,” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975): 16–31.

147 Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” 194–96.

148 Elliott, “First Easter,” 210.

149 Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 114.

150 Grant, Saint Paul, 79, also 75 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

151 Grant, Saint Peter, 89 (see chap. 12, n. 25).

152 Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu, und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche, 72 (1981), esp. the detailed abstract on 1 along with the early creedal expressions on 2 and the Christological titles being discussed on 4–26.

153 Kümmel, Theology of the New Testament, 102–5 (see chap. 15, n. 37).

154 Küng, Eternal Life?, 107. This comment by Küng is fairly similar to a statement on this same subject by Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 181.

155 Marxsen, Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 12. This seems to be an amazing final statement, given Marxsen’s own views set out elsewhere as well.

156 Such as Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 10–11; Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 11 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 3, 19, 111; Sheehan, First Coming, 113–14; Lindars, “The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57 (1975): 379; Brooke Hopkins, “Jesus and Object-Use: A Winnicottian Account of the Resurrection Myth,” International Review of Psychoanalysis 16 (1989): 93, 96.

157 Wright, Challenge of Jesus, 126; also 127.

158 Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus,” 117, also 112, 119 (see chap. 11, n. 112). Similar wording in part also occurs in Challenge of Jesus, 133.

159 Wright, Who Was Jesus?, 34 (see excursus 1, n. 43). For other strong comments on the same subject, see also Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 400, 463 (see chap. 1, n. 15).

160 Johnson, Living Jesus, 6.

161 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 48.

162 Fuller, 168.

163 Guillaume states, “La résurrection de Jésus est le centre de l’histoire du salut, le sommet du fait évangélique”: The resurrection of Jesus is the center of salvation history, the apex of the Gospel facts” (Habermas translation). See Guillaume in Luc Interprè des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, J. Gabalda et Cie, ed. Études Bibliques (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1979), 266).

164 Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, 225 (see excursus 2, n. 111). In the French edition, Durrwell includes a detailed discussion on a survey of early creeds, plus all four Gospels and Paul, on the centrality of these events (20–38). Of 1 Cor 15:3–5, Durrwell clearly asserts, “La formulation est, sans doute, antérieure à la conversion de Paul” (22). As pointed out a number of times in this study, for Durrwell, this would clearly place the creedal tradition before Paul’s trip to Damascus.

165 Künneth, Theologie der Auferstehung (154–65), on the resurrection as the basis for salvation as well as its role for many other theological categories (112–233, 253–58).

166 Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 213.

167 Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), 165.

168 Wilckens, Resurrection, 131 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

169 Caird, New Testament Theology, 412; Jacques Perret, Resusscité? Approche historique, Collection: Théologie Nouvelle (Paris: FAC ēditions, 1984), 26–27, 38–39; Ben F. Meyer, Aims of Jesus, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 48; Perkins, “Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” 442; Perkins, Resurrection, 17, 316; Hans Frei, “Of the Resurrection of Christ,” in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 201; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” Theological Studies, vol. 45 (1984), 409; John P. Galvin, “The Origin of Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus: Two Recent Perspectives,” Theological Studies 49 (1988): 44; Robert F. Scuka, “Resurrection: Critical Reflections on a Doctrine in Search of a Meaning,” Modern Theology 6 (1989): 77; Peter Selby, Look for the Living: The Corporate Nature of Resurrection Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1; Stephen Barton, “The Hermeneutics of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 108–112, 114; Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 167; Barclay, “Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” 15 (see chap. 15, n. 28); David Marshall, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 175; Dawe, Jesus, 107; Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 288–89; Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 128 (see excursus 1, n. 94); Robert C. Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus, I: Theological Orientations,” Heythrop Journal 16 (1975): 23; Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 23 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Davis, Risen Indeed, 1; Smith, Easter Gospels, 199 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Paul Lehmann, “The Politics of Easter,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 19 (1980), 37; Hagner, “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection,” 118–19 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Barnett, Jenson, and Peterson, Resurrection, 38 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Paul Avis, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Asking the Right Questions,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1; Christopher Rowland, “Interpreting the Resurrection,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 76–77; Marguerite Shuster, “The Preaching of the Resurrection of Christ in Augustine, Luther, Barth, and Thielicke,” in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins, Resurrection, 308; Margaret Barker, “Resurrection: Reflections on a New Approach,” in Barker, The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996), 98; Perry, Resurrection Promise, 1 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317, 319 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, 29, 42–43; Helmut Thielicke, “How Can I Be Sure of the Risen Christ?,” Christianity Today 27 (1983): 14–17; Doré, “La resurrection de Jésus,” Tome 65, 280–81 (see chap. 10, n. 19); Doré, “Croire en la résurrection de Jésus-Christ,” Études, tome 15 (1982), 536–37; Charles P. Price, review of Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? by Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, in Virginia Seminary Journal 42 (1989–1990).

170 Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 265.

171 Funk, Honest to Jesus, 35.

172 Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15.

173 Cohn-Sherbok, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish View,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 185.

174 Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 413; also 414 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

175 Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 117.

176 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 62.

177 Kent, 96.

178 Wright, “Early Traditions,” 126 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Cf. also Wright’s works, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 46–47, 49–51, 145, 150; and Challenge of Jesus, 130, 180. Most of all, see Wright’s volume Resurrection of the Son of God, 207–98, for the most in-depth of his treatments.

179 F. X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus mystère de salut, 226–28.

180 Caird, New Testament Theology, 267; cf. 239.

181 Davis, Risen Indeed, 196.

182 Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 135.

Part 5

The Gospel Resurrection Data

18

The Gospels and Resurrection Testimony

The four canonical Gospels plus Paul’s Epistles are certainly the two groups of New Testament books most formative in the early church’s development of its ideas and notions regarding Jesus’s resurrection. While contemporary critical scholars emphasize and give preference to what they term the “authentic” or “unanimously recognized” seven authentic Pauline Epistles, it may be accurate to report that Christians in the pew probably think first of the Gospels.

In this chapter, we will view various general aspects of the Gospels as a whole. This has nothing to do with, and hence should not be understood as, some species of precritical mixing and matching, combining, or some other attempt to harmonize the four texts without viewing crucial differences between them. Rather, we are simply observing a few wide-ranging trends and characteristics of this first-century genre together.

For example, how did Jewish thinking about the general resurrection of the dead in the centuries before the writing of the Gospels differ from the outlook presupposed in these four texts? Are changes evident? Did the Gospels depend on earlier sources? Or were they simply the products of storytelling from the time in which they were written, several decades after Jesus’s life? If the former, of what sort and how early were these previous traditions?

Seven Areas of Resurrection Transformation in Christianity

Leading up to the Gospels, what sort of developments were taking place regarding the subject of resurrection in the intertestamental Judaism preceding the public ministry of Jesus? In a public dialogue, N. T. Wright, followed by John Dominic Crossan, has spoken of multiple “mutations” that occurred between the close of this intertestamental Jewish period and the birth of Christianity. Wright enumerates “six Christian mutations within first-century Jewish resurrection belief.” He comments concerning his earlier 2003 text, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that this listing was “perhaps the most original aspect of the book.”1

Crossan in response to Wright states, “Now, concerning Christian tradition, I like very much Tom’s word mutation.” Then he adds, “What we must realize is how profoundly different everything is after a mutation.” Even more intriguingly, Crossan enlarges these thoughts with another notion: “Mutations are hard to live with. . . . I think that he [Wright] is absolutely right that it requires a historical explanation. It’s a historical question.”2

Wright’s six mutations, which are apparently appreciated by Crossan, are as follows: (1) Resurrection belief moved from a peripheral Jewish doctrine to the very center of the earliest Christian faith. (2) Jewish sources are rather vague concerning the details of the resurrected body, while the subject is “sharpened up” in Christianity, where the body is said to “be transformed into a new type of immortal physicality.” (3) From Paul until Tertullian, the Christian view on the last subject is rather uniform, whereas the views in both Judaism and paganism vary quite a lot.

(4) The resurrection event “split into two” for the early Christians. Judaism conceived of a single, corporate event for believers at the end of time, whereas Christians saw the resurrection of Jesus alone followed by the resurrection of believers when Jesus returns. (5) The idea of resurrection functioned in a metaphorical way in both Judaism as well as Christianity. For Judaism it could be the symbol for the Jews returning from captivity. However, while still retaining its bodily meaning, the event becomes for Christians a metaphor for baptism and following Jesus in holiness. (6) Lastly, in Judaism, a messiah who rises from the dead was unexpected, whereas in Christianity, this notion is the center of the gospel faith, providing arguments that Jesus really was the Messiah.3

For his part, we saw that Crossan was very pleased with Wright’s notion of mutations. He even compliments Wright’s phrase “transformed physicality,” since in Crossan’s far more skeptical position, real social and other change happens on a real earth, so it figures that real bodies would have to be the agents.4 Crossan also appreciates the Christian notion that resurrection is split in two, but cautions that in between the two events believers cannot just sit back and do nothing. They must be working actively to clean up the world.5

Regarding the social change just mentioned, Crossan calls this notion the “collaborative eschaton” or as it is termed later, “collaborative eschatology.” This is the idea that humans are commanded in Scripture to assist God in changing the wrong to right in our world. For his part, Wright prizes Crossan’s use of this collaborative future and not only wishes that he had said it first, but told Crossan that the next time he wrote on this subject, he would make this concept a seventh mutation, giving Crossan the credit for the thought!6 Indeed, this is precisely what Wright did too, as he later expanded his list to seven and cited Crossan’s contribution from the dialogue.7

The central point of the mutation scenarios, then, is that something incredible was afoot in the early church, as it differed at least in emphasis from the Judaism of this time. Change was apparent, and it manifested itself in at least these seven areas, as Wright and also Crossan note, with all of the Christian concepts relating directly to the earliest belief in a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. This revolution that touched many areas beyond apologetics was in the making. Certainly one of the most intriguing options here, emphasized by both Wright and Crossan, is that it is precisely because of the resurrection message that believers should be sacrificially committed to both believers and unbelievers alike. This is a theme that is emphasized several times in Scripture and needs to be pursued in detail, as we do in the last volume of this study.

Indications of Early Traditions behind Gospel Resurrection Concepts

Some skeptics and mythicists have charged that these Christian ideas did not arise during Jesus’s time but rather emerged a few decades later around the period when the Gospels were composed. Of course, if this were the case, then these ideas would not reflect Jesus’s original teachings.

But the vast majority of critical scholars oppose this notion. Even agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman asserts that there are “compelling reasons” why “virtually all scholars of the New Testament” think that stories were being told about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection which predate even Mark and, still earlier, Paul. The late Maurice Casey is another recent agnostic authority who accepts these sources. Still others are aligned all the way from more agnostics and skeptical thinkers to the more conservative ones. How much earlier were these previous sources used by these New Testament authors? The Gospel writers knew many older stories that included various traditions that predated their writings, as Luke 1:1–4 attests.8 If these stories predated Paul, like both Ehrman and Casey conclude, that would push back the dates of the original pre-New Testament accounts at least into the 40s or even earlier. Again here, Ehrman and Casey readily agree.9

Thus, it is widely concluded that the Gospel authors indeed relied upon oral or written sources of some kind. Ehrman even includes the Gospel of John in this evaluation.10 Whether or not these original stories were reliable is a matter considered many times throughout this study. We will mention several paths that help indicate the reliability of the accounts that are most necessary for our purposes. These paths will simply be listed here very briefly, without much elaboration.

Greco-Roman Biography

First, although there were some scholarly precursors, especially since the epochal work of classical scholar Richard Burridge almost twenty-five years ago, it is probably fair to conclude that most scholars now agree that the Gospel genre is most likely a species of Greco-Roman biography known as bioi, “Lives.” Burridge arrived at this conclusion after an incredibly detailed analysis of the secular classical works compared to the Gospel characteristics and features.11

After his major work on this subject, Burridge explained more succinctly some themes of his 200-page argument. In the hands of influential New Testament skeptical scholar Rudolf Bultmann, working largely before World War II, the Gospels had been treated as a collection of folktales and myths unlinked to history. Many thought of the Gospels as a unique genre unlike other ancient writings. But the Gospels actually exhibited many of the characteristics of the Greco-Roman Lives, such as jumping directly into the subject matter as the hero reached a major point in their life. Additionally, these works were chiefly concerned with a person’s moral character and actions rather than their inward, psychological states of mind. Still another common characteristic emerging from a structural analysis is that the Gospels also share with the classical bioi approximately the same percentage of verbs being concerned directly with the hero. While the Gospels do not mimic modern biographies, neither do the Greco-Roman Lives.12

However, not all Greco-Roman Lives were created equally. Bauckham follows Christopher Bryan in noting some differences in these ancient works between the “elegant” ways that Tacitus and Plutarch wrote their Lives and the lack of flowing or “continuous” treatment in other Lives, such as the anonymous Life of Secundus or Lucian’s Demonax. Bryan places the smoothness of Mark’s integration of his Gospel sources as being somewhere in the middle, less elegant and continuous than Plutarch or Tacitus but not as separated or disjointed as portions in Secundas. So there are several varieties among the classical Lives themselves and hence no uniform code that the ancients were required to fulfill in order to “qualify.” Bauckham adds that Mark’s Gospel is structured like it was drawn from oral sources, which may account for some of these differences.13

How does this first path contribute to the overall issues that we are addressing in this chapter? Granted, even if the Gospels were patterned after the Greco-Roman bioi,14 this does not automatically ensure their historical reliability. Yet, it does provide many more helpful hints or even hopeful promises that the conclusions could be trustworthy, especially when compared to the old picture of many decades ago supported by Bultmann and others. Indeed, this comparison places the Gospels in the most helpful category of all, hence shedding a little more light on the subjects before us. As such, it is indeed significant that so much data point firmly in this direction, causing the majority of contemporary critical scholars, including even skeptical ones, to agree with these general concepts.15

Early Creedal Traditions

Our second and perhaps the major recent path to discovering early material behind the Gospels consists of a detailed number of scholarly studies on the nature of oral and written traditions and how these were passed down from one generation to the next. Different sorts of confirmation could increase the likelihood of the earlier reports being accurate.

Initially, probably the strongest indication of reliable traditions in the earliest church is drawn from the brief creedal snippets contained throughout the New Testament Epistles and the sermon summaries in Acts, which are recognized as such by the vast majority of critical scholars. These teachings usually concern the central message in the New Testament teaching and preaching—identified as the good news. At a minimum, it is defined in these texts as the core message of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Here’s the chief point: Paul’s epistles certainly precede the traditional dating of the Gospel of Mark, so the trail of very early creedal items reported in these epistles,16 drawn from these oral transmissions, can be checked. These texts serve at least as a fair indication of several facets of how carefully this early Christian tradition was kept and passed on to others at slightly later dates. Much space is given elsewhere in these present volumes to the details of this topic of early Christian creeds. So it will simply be left here for now: the majority of critical scholars recognize at least the broad outline of the process just delineated, including the implications that this progression fairly describes and provides at least some understanding of how the Gospel traditions could likewise be built in part, connected to, and grounded in these earlier reports.17

Critical Models of Traditioning: The Scandinavian School

Next, other attempts that also sought to trace carefully the tradition behind the Gospels arose as critiques of form criticism (in German: Formgeschichte, “form history”), an early to mid-twentieth century approach. Seeking a solution to the relationship between the preexisting traditions and the texts of the Gospels, Bauckham maps three options as “Models of Oral Tradition.” Bauckham opens the discussion by recounting the chief argument of his book: that the four canonical Gospels were “close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus.”18 The first option that Bauckham presents is the chiefly German form-critical challenge by Rudolf Bultmann and others,19 which concentrated on the particular oral “forms” (Gattungen) and how they were pieced together like “beads on a string” comprising each entire Gospel narrative.20

What is sometimes referred to as the Scandinavian School arose in response and opposition to Bultmann. Swedish New Testament scholar Harald Riesenfeld, an early advocate of this alternative, rejected form criticism, argued for a model that cohered more with Jewish practice. Riesenfeld argued roughly that Jews transmitted their oral testimony with a more fixed and controlled method. Early Christians, most of whom were Jews, carried the same concern to record Jesus’s teachings carefully and accurately. This was also Jesus’s own method in making his disciples repeat and strictly memorize his message.21

Riesenfeld’s student Birger Gerhardsson attempted to expand many of these thoughts, drawing from his major study of the rabbinic Jewish treatment of oral tradition.22 However, Gerhardsson’s thesis was criticized for being too firm, rigid, and anachronistic, especially in requiring strict memorization and exactitude, given our observation of both rabbinic as well as Christian examples of somewhat freer transmission, as well as treating almost chiefly early oral sources, hence allowing little room for written sources.23

Critical Models of Traditioning: Kenneth Bailey

To be quite sure, there is a large amount of ground between Bultmann’s view on the one hand that the pre-Gospel tradition was uncontrolled by the apostles and thus was actually quite open to pagan ideas or other errors, and Gerhardsson’s thesis entailing a very controlled tradition that required Jesus’s followers to memorize his words on the other hand. A popular third, mediating ground is found in the work of Kenneth Bailey, a New Testament scholar who spent over thirty years in the Middle East, often among local villagers. From this overall background and context, Bailey honed his views. In contradistinction to Bultmann, Bailey proposed a tradition that was controlled by the Christian leaders like the apostles without requiring the rigidity or lack of flexibility of Gerhardsson. He gave special emphasis to the eyewitnesses.

According to Bailey, in these Middle Eastern village settings, the elders, leaders, or even the listeners in general would step in and correct the reciter when key words were missed or to fill in a phrase if the recitation paused beyond the normal amount of time. At the same time, some flexibility was allowed in noncrucial details.24

Bailey’s thesis has garnered less attention than either Bultmann or Gerhardsson, whose views occupy the positions on either side of him, but those who have noticed Bailey include some very influential scholars. For example, while summarizing Bailey’s thesis, N. T. Wright thinks that it deserves a place among the best sources on how pre-Gospel tradition most likely became included in the Gospels.25 So how does the process actually take place? Helpfully, as Wright explains, “new and important stories are repeated over and over until the basic pattern of their telling is indelibly imprinted on the village mind.” It can no longer be charged or assumed that early Christians were not interested in a truthful depiction of history.26

In a separate treatment of Bailey, Dunn praises his theory of oral tradition as the best model on offer while cautioning that Bailey’s treatment still tends to be anecdotal.27 While Bauckham clearly thinks that Bailey offers some worthwhile innovations to help satisfy the need for a model of oral tradition, he locates probably the most areas of concern.28

Critical Models of Traditioning: James D. G. Dunn, Samuel Byrskog, and Richard Bauckham

While these three major researchers have developed many ideas on the nature of the traditioning process in the Gospels that complement one another, they certainly have their differences as well. Unfortunately, in this immediate context, we will only be able to list a few highlights.

We have already remarked that Dunn approves many aspects of Bailey’s view of informal controlled tradition as a sort of middle ground between Bultmann’s Formgeschichte and Gerhardsson’s formal controlled versions of chiefly oral testimony. Bailey tended to place more emphasis on the testimony of the earliest eyewitnesses as reciters of the tradition. For Dunn, eyewitnesses are certainly part of the process (including his heading “Apostolic Custodians”), but Dunn seems to place more emphasis on the early Christian communities. The idea is that the eyewitnesses and the community together could be responsible for reciting the stories handed down from Jesus, hence controlling the process.29 Then Dunn proceeds to identify in minute detail how the oral tradition develops in the Gospel narratives and teaching.30

Dunn provides a couple of summaries of his position. The broad strokes are as follows: (1) Jesus as he was remembered is the only legitimate objective for a historical study. (2) The gospel tradition confirms that the earliest Christians sought to remember Jesus. (3) The Jesus tradition showed how Jesus was remembered. (4) The essential shape of this tradition was arranged by the eyewitnesses of Jesus. These distinctive points here most likely go back to “the consistent and distinctive character of the impact made by Jesus himself.”31

Samuel Byrskog emphasizes the crucial role of eyewitnesses in the contexts of ancient Greco-Roman writers, in the ancient imparting of oral testimony, as well as in early Christian tradition. Ancient historians actually considered an overreliance on written sources to be subpar research! One of the worst types of dishonesty consisted of an ancient writer who fabricated having possession of the primary sources or lied about seeing something personally without having done so32—indicating just how important firsthand information was considered. So the author should either be a participant in the events or interview the eyewitnesses. These same historical practices should be evident when the Gospel authors record tradition.33

Bauckham’s theme is stated several times throughout his volume. He thinks that fresh, new attention needs to be given to the idea that the historical Jesus of the Gospel traditions is much more closely tied to eyewitness testimony than is usually acknowledged by today’s scholars. The Gospel writers (or “evangelists”) “were in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses” leading to the authors being faithful to their witnesses concerning both the words and deeds of Jesus.34

Bauckham acknowledges several strong contributions from Dunn and Byrskog as well as others. He does hold that both need more emphasis on the place of the eyewitnesses, especially Dunn. While Byrskog does the most of these two scholars here, even he “requires further testing and development.”35 So it seems as if Bauckham’s response is that while Byrskog does well in identifying the place of eyewitness testimony in the Gospel traditions and bringing it more to the forefront of discussions, it is left to him to show that the Gospels actually possess this eyewitness information. It might just be noted here in passing that beyond the normal arguments often seen in books written on the reliability of the Gospels, Bauckham does adopt some very fresh, different, and original ideas on this theme.

The study of potential models for passing on the “Jesus tradition” in the Gospels is a crucial topic. The most supported of recent scholarly models that we have viewed, from Bailey to Bauckham to Gerhardsson with a few others in between, all take very seriously the oral traditition, the text, the transmission, and most vitally, the issues involving historicity. This is an exciting time in historical Jesus Gospel research because it is bringing together some new, worthwhile, and exciting insights across the theological spectrum.

N. T. Wright’s Four Indications of the Early Date of the Gospels’ Resurrection Material

When discussing the general model for passing on tradition in the Gospels, we saw that Wright prefers Bailey’s approach.36 N. T. Wright also maps out four indications here,37 which evidence that much of the resurrection tradition in the four Gospels is quite early.38 Given the state of recent Gospel research, he argues, quite shockingly, that “it is far, far easier to believe that the stories are essentially very early, pre-Pauline, and have not been substantially altered except for light personal polishing.”39 Elsewhere, he adds that the texts would not read as they do unless the teachings were before AD 50.40 This presumably would be to place the original portions of these narratives back into the same time frame as the pre-Pauline creedal texts contained in the Epistles! This would indeed be an explosive notion in the world of New Testament studies today. What data could possibly warrant a comment such as this?

First, Wright asks how we can account for the near absence of Old Testament quotation, allusion, or even hint in the Gospel resurrection narratives. While the Gospels make constant and repeated reference to the Old Testament with phrases such as “according to the Scriptures” or “as was fulfilled” by this or that prophet, the resurrection accounts are “almost entirely innocent” of such references, “with only a couple of small exceptions.”41

Wright adds that it is simply difficult to imagine how, while attempting to celebrate the most important event in the Gospels, the writers would not only discontinue their practice of referring to Old Testament fulfillment but also that, in the process, they would pass up an opportunity to further evidence the miracle with predicted scriptural confirmation. Strangely enough, why would John go to almost the opposite extreme by telling his readers that the two chief disciples, Peter and John, did not understand the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was even supposed to rise from the dead (20:9)?42

Second, Wright wonders why the women were described as the “the principle witnesses” to Jesus’s resurrection.43 The most mentioned aspect from commentators is that it was certainly an embarrassing move to designate the women as the first eyewitnesses, especially when there is no deviation in this basic fact in any of the four Gospels in spite of this awkwardness. Clearly, the traditional apologetic punch is missing here, given that female testimony was generally not respected in the Mediterranean world.44

Further, why is the account of the women not present in the famous pre-Pauline creedal list of appearances in 1 Cor 15:3–7? It’s probably because this list in context highlights the evidential approach while the Gospels are telling the original story. Wright maintains that this certainly makes the Gospel traditions appear to be quite early, as if they were before any concerns regarding either appearance or apologetic. This does not look like a concocted account, especially when such a conspiracy would have to occur to what critical scholars think are four at least partially independent writers located some distance away from each other. Rather, the clearest explanation is that the narrative appears this way in each of the Gospels because this is the way it actually occurred—what Wright terms “ruthlessly historical.”45

Third, the best a priori guess regarding how these four authors might have portrayed their descriptions of Jesus’s resurrection body would probably be that it would involve some sort of shining body surrounded by glory or, at the very least, topped by a halo! Not only is that seemingly a common human idea throughout history, but that would be the most consistent picture corresponding to the best known resurrection text in the Old Testament, Dan 12:2. There the righteous saints appear like shining stars.

So what about the Son of God—wouldn’t he be at least as glorious as these raised saints? Or more so than holy men in other religions? Also, what about the angels at the empty tomb who were shining according to two of the four Gospels (Matt 28:3–4; Luke 24:4–5)? Yet, how could it be that not a single one of these four accounts included at least vestiges of a Messiah who was also shining?46

To add another conundrum, even though Jesus’s resurrected body appeared quite normal, it also seemed to possess new powers. When the stone was rolled back from the grave, Jesus was already gone without a window or door through which to exit. He appeared and disappeared through locked doors. As Wright says, Jesus “disappears into God’s space, that is, ‘heaven.’”47

So Wright’s point here is that the Gospel portrayal of Jesus’s resurrection appearances seems quite down-to-earth and natural in many respects. It gives no evidence of having expanded or grown due to the intervening length of time. This again points to an early message, far before other texts like the Gospel of Peter’s depiction of Jesus, for example.

Fourth, and one of the most important signs of an early date, is that there is incredibly no connection in the Gospel narratives of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances to the resurrection of believers. Thus, none of these resurrection stories explain that because Jesus was raised from the dead, believers will be raised as well. Yet, this connection is mentioned almost twenty times in the New Testament, chiefly in the Epistles.48 Since this doctrine is so frequently connected to Jesus’s resurrection as one of the foremost theological applications in the New Testament, it would certainly seem that the lack of mention in the more than 100 Gospel verses concerning the original resurrection story itself is most likely due to the early date of the report where the supreme interest was in simply telling and ascertaining the original story, even before bridges were developed to other doctrines.

Intriguingly, the chief application that Jesus expressed in the resurrection narratives, as Wright likes to say, is “Jesus is raised, therefore Jesus’ new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do.”49 In the Gospels, the message of these closing texts is that Jesus sent out his followers to carry everywhere the good news.50

Wright’s four categories of resurrection testimony point strongly to at least some Gospel traditions being very early. As such, they serve as intriguing pointers that move back the time frame for some major reports regarding the historical Jesus and his teaching. Of course, various Gospel traditions, like sources in a history textbook, can describe events from the same general period, though with the interviews themselves being given at different times. Similarly, we do not know when Luke’s conversations about the historical Jesus (Luke 1:1–4) took place. Yet Wright’s entire theme here is that the reports had to be both early as well as accurate, since the material itself contains those built-in characteristics. So as contemporary research moves on, new data appear to indicate more and more reasons to trust the Gospel reports.

Conclusion: Bringing Together the Gospel Models of Tradition

This chapter began with brief descriptions of seven significant mutations that accompanied the modifications regarding the concept of resurrection between Jewish and Christian emphases. These were presented by N. T. Wright and appreciated by Dom Crossan in one of their dialogues. Though a number of Christian ideas concerning resurrection remained the same or were similar to their Jewish roots, many other beliefs took on radically new and exciting forms. These trajectories were in vogue during Jesus’s ministry as it began, grew, and ended.

Over the bulk of this chapter, we outlined several reasons for our primary conclusion that the oral and perhaps written Gospel traditions that described Jesus’s life and ministry took seriously the idea of historical accuracy. The acknowledgment of these themes has emerged from the presence of many strong details and sources, such as the broad scholarly recognition that the New Testament genre is an example of the general Greco-Roman bioi model. Further, the existence of dozens of early New Testament creedal sources, some of which are pre-Pauline and definitely date to the 30s, are actually windows directly into the earliest Christian traditions themselves. Intriguingly, even highly critical scholars probably recognize these two areas as regularly as do conservative researchers.

The question before us in this present chapter, that we addressed very briefly, can be stated in the words of Bauckham’s chapter title: what are the potential “Models of Oral Tradition”? To that end, Wright raises an excellent point while interacting with Bailey concerning the same issue: there is a need for an adequate model for the transmission of Gospel tradition, and the New Testament certainly provides some helpful textual indications as hints. After all, the New Testament clearly specifies that the tradition was in the hands of authoritative persons. Wright notes this from both the Gospels (as in Luke 1:1–4; 4:20) as well as the Epistles (like 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1–3).51

Certainly Wright was not trying to be exhaustive. Many more texts easily could have been added to these and related subjects, since various New Testament passages place a high premium on a wide variety of relevant subjects here. For more examples, some passages value eyewitness testimony (Luke 7:18–23; 24:36–43; John 19:35; 20:27; 2 Pet 1:16–18; John 1:14; 1 John 1:1–3), passing on tradition or trustworthy sayings (Mark 7:3; John 14:26; 1 Cor 11:2; Gal 1:20; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11–13; Titus 1:9), and the need for faithful witnesses to impart the gospel message to others (Matt 10:5–7, 14, 16, 18; Luke 11:49; 24:48; John 1:7–8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26, 28, 32; 4:39; 5:31–32; 12:17; 15:27; Acts 1:8, 21–23; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 2 Tim 2:2). At least a couple of times, the subject is a very specific creedal formula for passing on tradition (1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–7).52

It is noteworthy that Dunn also highlights similar notions, citing dozens more New Testament passages that primarily emphasize two motifs—“bearing witness” and “remembering.” Dunn considers the latter notion as the more striking of the two, but both remind us regarding the common method(s) that the earliest Christians utilized in “retelling the story of Jesus and of taking steps actively to recall what Jesus said and did.” Thus, we gain a good overall understanding here of the general process that was employed, as well as the importance that was attached to this, in the early church to ensure that Jesus’s teachings and accounts of his activities were reproduced in a trustworthy manner.53

However, could it be that the key words in these texts above were used more generally or even carelessly by first-century Jews? At any rate, perhaps the terms simply did not have the meaning that they do in the twenty-first century? Posed differently, how do we know that the statements above were not meant more loosely with much room being allowed for stories to be invented and added? So on different ends of the spectrum, could Bultmann be closer to the correct use of tradition than Bauckham?

Looking more closely at the details of just a few of these texts, it must be concluded that a stricter view like Bailey’s (or any of the other models that we discussed that take tradition more literally and historically) that still allows for some play is required not simply by the textual wording but by the relevant actions too. For instance, in Luke 1:1–4, the spotlight is on collecting and investigating particular occurrences, teachings, and other information concerning Jesus as they had been handed down by the eyewitnesses. Luke claims to have investigated these items to ascertain their certainty. There is no need for such lofty language or inspection if the accepted practice were simply to add material freely. On the other hand, if this language were only embellished to sound more authoritative, it seems a little odd that similar verbal loftiness does not appear elsewhere in New Testament books.

Or when reporting the early Q material regarding John the Baptist’s doubts (Luke 7:18–23; Matt 11:2–6), it is not simply that Jesus responds by mentioning his miracles, but that virtually all recent critical scholars think that these events occurred in some historical sense, since they are well attested in historical terms.54 At this point, the nature of John’s disciples as witnesses (Luke 7:22, 24; cf. Matt 11:4) pertains not only to literal events, but to healings at that.

Later and similarly, Jesus calls his own disciples his “witnesses” after he produces decisive evidence of his resurrection appearances (Luke 24:36–48), just as Jesus did in John while declaring his disciples to be his messengers (20:19–21). For Jesus’s disciples as well as John the Baptist’s followers, both the witnessing as well as the miracles were real events to be passed on or proclaimed to others. As Dunn points out, retelling and bearing witness in cases like these involves recounting literal events,55 very much unlike Bultmann’s model.

Or again, in both the early Acts sermon summaries embedded within Acts 2–5, 10, and 13 and with the very early pre-Pauline creedal references such as Rom 1:3–4 and 10:9–10, we note some similar traits. If the tradition was simply free-floating and sometimes invented, then why do the historical contours of the good news of the gospel message always stay virtually the same, agreeing in proclaiming at a minimum the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus? This would seem to be even more unlikely in that it involves more than one author over time, unless, of course, there were an objective historical message here with which the sources comply.

Further, when a replacement apostle was chosen to take Judas’s place, why was the person also required to be a witness to historical events, especially Jesus’s resurrection (Acts 1:21–22)? This is especially crucial if, per Bultmann’s model, all sorts of items could be added, invented, or fashioned to which a new recruit needed to subscribe, according to one’s own fluctuating religious notions. So why is the same central gospel message present instead of the willy-nilly scenarios? This also reflects clearly the disciples’ belief that tradition had to be passed on in an orderly and historical fashion.

Along the same lines, why did the apostle Paul make at least two trips to Jerusalem in Galatians 1 and 2 (along with perhaps a third in Acts 15), precisely for the purpose of checking out the nature of his gospel message with the major apostolic leaders to be sure that he had understood it correctly? Paul received a positive response from the apostles too (particularly Gal 2:2, 6, 9). But in the same context, the preaching of any other message brought eternal condemnation (Gal 1:8–9). Later Paul reports that he and the other apostles were all preaching the same account of the resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:11). So why was this dire warning of judgment and the need to accurately confirm the gospel message necessary for Paul and the other apostles? Why did they need to agree and “get the message right”? On Bultmann’s model, the apostles certainly had the power to expand the gospel any which way they wanted. This argument alone indicates that Bultmann’s approach is clearly mistaken, and by a wide margin too.

Lastly, the more formally stated, exceptionally early pre-Pauline creeds like 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3–7 include the equivalent of the technical Aramaic words for passing on tradition (“delivered” and “received”), along with almost identical preambles. This alone poses very difficult issues for the view that Christian tradition was transmitted at will and could be adjusted freely. The mere formality along with the same essential message (as also noted above) belie the “almost anything goes” supposition. Further, these two texts are more recognized and accepted as authoritative by recent critical scholars than virtually any other New Testament texts.

The foregoing seven examples indicate that a model of tradition somewhere between Bailey’s approach on the one side and Bauckham’s option on the other is demanded by the New Testament evidence. Bultmannian mythical models are the odd views out, and some of the cases just presented here are among the many that indicate precisely why his position is now considered to be defunct, as we have documented in another chapter. Each of the other models takes the historical data seriously, respects the careful transmission-of-tradition process, and allows some flexibility in some of the details while requiring agreement in the essential message, as these seven New Testament examples require.

The bottom line is this: scholars may not always agree or perhaps cannot narrow down a single, specific model of passing on tradition, as in accepting the approaches of Bailey, Byrskog, Dunn, Bauckham, Gerhardsson, or others. Still, the relevant New Testament texts teach each of these items: the importance of eye-witness testimony, passing on tradition (sometimes even in fairly strict forms), being faithful witnesses, plus Dunn’s additional emphasis on remembering. Each of these practices is clearly valued. So just one clear model may not be ascertained, no doubt largely due to their similarities and sometimes slight nuances. Perhaps we can view it from the opposite direction however: can any models be eliminated? We saw that it was clearly the case that the vast majority of contemporary commentators think that Bultmann’s form-critical and demythologizing methods have already come crashing down.

The clear choice appears to be to pick one of the models that best fits these parameters that were outlined in this chapter. An aspect or two from another model might be borrowed to explain a few additional features. The latter may be necessary, for example, with the “tighter” parameters involved in passing on particular traditions in some creeds that appear like they may have been memorized. This could include texts like Luke 24:34; Rom 1:3–4; 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6; 11:23–26; 15:3–7 (which may have circulated first in Aramaic); Phil 2:6–11; 1 Tim 3:16; or 2 Tim 2:11–13.

The chief conclusion is that this approach makes it possible to narrow down a general model for passing on tradition in the New Testament, like those of Byrskog or Bauckham, while employing a stricter approach like Gerhardsson’s in those instances like 1 Cor 11:23–26 or 13:3–7, which were “received” and “delivered” in formalized ways and appear closer to having been memorized. After all, the myriads of applicable New Testament texts demand, especially in essential areas like the gospel message, some sort of organized and deliberate approach that required the word or confirmation of an authoritative eyewitness to guide as well as assure the tradition.

So, we examined in detail several different models for the accurate passing on of early tradition. But conclusions that often diverge only in some rather minute ways are difficult to choose between, especially since more than one model may be utilized to account for different sorts of data. So our chief point is that we can get close enough to see that the Gospel bioi are based on good sources and data. Further, dozens of accredited New Testament texts, including early creeds along with some Acts sermon summaries that are placed in the 30s as allowed and utilized even by skeptics, also indicate these conclusions.56

Wright even concludes that at least some of the best Gospel materials were also pre-Pauline in nature, apparently joining some of the creeds in dating back to the decade immediately following the crucifixion.57 But why should this be considered radical? As we just said, the creeds are almost always dated there already. Further, agnostic New Testament skeptic Maurice Casey placed the date of Mark’s Gospel at about AD 40 and dated Matthew’s Gospel not too long afterward—at about AD 50–60.58 Another New Testament agnostic and skeptic, James Crossley, wrote his PhD dissertation defending his view that Mark dates from the mid-30s to the mid-40s.59 Strangely enough, his reasons for this conclusion differ from Casey’s, thereby providing differing sets of arguments for Mark’s exceptionally early dating!

In case it has not been noticed, the conclusions drawn in this chapter are far from conservative theological encumbrances on the text. Rather, many of the conclusions throughout have been shared by agnostic scholars like Casey, Ehrman, Crossley, and Wedderburn, or other critical scholars like Crossan, Borg, Dunn, and Bryskog. For the most part, the views here are well established. Other critical scholars, like Bauckham, have taken many extra steps to argue that the Gospels are largely true.60

Notes

1 N. T. Wright, “Opening Statement,” in Crossan and Wright, The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 18. The exact enumeration and order of Wright’s mutations, as well as their title, have been expanding among his ongoing publications. In his earlier volume, Resurrection of the Son of God, 477–79 (see chap. 6, n. 44), Wright lists “five remarkable things” instead of these six “mutations.” The six mutations in this dialogue with Crossan will later become seven mutations, as we will note. The arrangement of these ideas has varied as well.

2 Crossan, “Opening Statement,” 25–26 (see chap. 10, n. 94).

3 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 18–20.

4 In all three of the Wright-Crossan dialogues on resurrection that I attended, Crossan has been very particular each time in emphasizing his point of real bodies accounting for real change on a real earth as we take back the world from the “thugs,” as he likes to say. For Crossan’s clearest statement that the early Christian view was that Jesus rose and appeared bodily, see Crossan, “Resurrection of Jesus in Its Jewish Context,” 29–57, esp. 37–40, 46–49, 55 (see chap. 10, n. 94). What makes his position on this subject even more amazing and honorable is that, while recognizing this as the early Christian position, Crossan himself does not believe in either Jesus’s literal resurrection appearances or an afterlife. On this last point, see Habermas, “Resurrection Research,” 135–53, esp. 148–49 (see chap. 4, n. 4).

5 Crossan, “Opening Statement,” esp. 27.

6 On the idea of a “collaborative eschaton” or “collaborative eschatology,” see Crossan, “Opening Statement,” 26 and also “Dialogue,” 43 (see chap. 10, n. 94). On Wright’s appreciation and promise to cite Crossan, see “Dialogue,” 42–43. (All of these references are from The Resurrection of Jesus.)

7 N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 40–49, esp. 45–46.

8 Contrasts are readily available from Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74–93, 156, 259–64, quotation on 261 and the citation of Luke 1:1–4 on 260 (see chap. 2, n. 15), along with skeptical New Testament scholar Casey, Jesus, 52–53, 83, 243–44 (see chap 4, n. 41), on one side, and more conservative New Testament scholars such as Richard Bauckham on the other in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, with chap. 9 serving as a major example in an entire book devoted to features like these (see chap. 1, n. 25).

9 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 92–93, 140–41, for several examples among a large number of such texts in this volume; Casey, Jesus, 185–86, comments on the major New Testament example.

10 Ehrman, 260.

11 Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71). The crux of Burridge’s argument comprises the vast majority of the book, esp. chaps. 3–10.

12 Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, esp. 49–52 (see chap. 11, n. 29).

13 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly 231–33.

14 The term Lives is more accurate here, for as Burridge and Gould point out, the later word biographe does not actually appear until the ninth century. Even so, this term indicates the writing (graphē) of a life (bio or bioi). However, the term biography entails more like the modern notion of writing about people’s lives in a more full and complicated way than what was meant by either the Greco-Roman or the Gospel writers. See Burridge and Gould, Jesus Now and Then, 49.

15 On this being the majority scholarly view at present, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 276; cf. also 231–32. Some of those in agreement include skeptics like Casey, Jesus, 110, 130, 134, 234; and Ehrman, New Testament, 55–59 (see chap. 4, n. 34). Other major scholars who agree include Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, chap. 10; and Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 185 (see chap. 1, n. 3). Much more recently, Michael Licona has published perhaps the most in-depth comparison ever of Plutarch’s famous Lives in relation to the genre of the canonical Gospels. Like Bauckham, Licona attests that “the majority of New Testament scholars” have embraced the findings of Burridge and others “that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography” (197). Throughout the entire volume, Licona argues in a wide variety of ways to this end. See Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 43).

16 As we will list examples below, even some major agnostic scholars have agreed that at least some of these creeds and Acts sermon summaries are pre-Pauline and therefore should be dated back in the 30s, within just a couple of years after the crucifixion.

17 For far more relevant details than we can discuss here of the movement from these creedal texts to the Gospels, see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–79; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 854–62; as well as the very helpful argument that moves from chapter to chapter in Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (see excursus 1, n. 94).

18 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 240; cf. also 6. “Models of Oral Tradition” is the name of chapter 10, from which this material was drawn.

19 As in Bultmann and Kundsin, Form Criticism (see chap. 5, n. 28).

20 Bauckham begins chapter 10 with a discussion of form criticism (241–46), followed by nine decisive criticisms that recent critical scholars have leveled at this method (246–49), before turning to the “Scandinavian Alternative” (249–252), followed by what may be the halfway house of Kenneth Bailey (252–63), in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Wright dates the popularity of form criticism to approximately 1920–1970 in Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 596 (see excursus 1, n. 65). Wright provides his own criticisms of form criticism in New Testament and the People of God, chap. 14, parts 1–2 (see chap. 1, n. 15) as well as in his coauthored work with Stephen Neill, Interpretation of the New Testament, 276–81 (see chap. 4, n. 16). We discussed more details of form criticism in an earlier chapter.

21 This summary is presented by Archibald M. Hunter in Bible and Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 39–40.

22 Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (see chap. 8, n. 71).

23 For some additional works written by Gerhardsson, see the following: Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1964); The Origin of the Gospel Traditions (London: SCM, 1977); “The Authenticity and Authority of Revelation,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 47–59; The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001). Some critical responses, both pro and con, would include: Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 3n2; 111n1; 209n3 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 114, 116, 125–26 (see chap. 1, n. 23); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 251–52; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 197–98.

24 Works by Kenneth E. Bailey include: “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 34–54; “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Expository Times 106 (1995): 363–67; Poet and Peasant/Through Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 206n176, recommends three other volumes that provide some confirmation of Bailey’s ideas: J. Vansina, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); Vansina, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (London: Routledge, 1965); I. Okpewho, African Oral Literature: Backgrounds, Character and Continuity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992). N. T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God, 133n22 recommends another text to augment Bailey’s approach, as well: Henry Wansbrough, ed., Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

25 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, esp. 133–37. Wright provides additional worthwhile insights on Bailey too, on 53, 100, 129 (esp. n. 15), 170, 175n118, 179.

26 Wright, 135.

27 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 205–10, esp. 206.

28 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 252–63.

29 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 176–84, with the heading above on 180, 205–10. Cf. the input and evaluation by Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 260–63.

30 Dunn, 210–54.

31 Dunn, 881–84, emphasis in the original. Subpoints follow. The list is also given on 335–36.

32 Ancient historian Lucian specifically mentions and complains about this sort of misrepresentation in his text How to Write History, trans. K. Kilburn, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), 43–45; cf. an author’s work being destroyed by Alexander the Great because the writer bragged of misrepresenting Alexander’s exploits (19), as well as Lucian asserting that historians should never lie (11) or exaggerate (13).

33 Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 214–20; cf. Werner H. Kelber and Samuel Byrskog, eds., Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), “Introduction”; see also Bauckham’s summary here, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 8–11.

34 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 6, 240, 260, 304–5.

35 Bauckham, 10–11, 262–63.

36 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 133–37.

37 Compared with the earlier list of seven mutations outlined at the outset of this chapter, Wright maintains the same number of (four) comments here, but the numbering and amount of details vary. The summary in the dialogue with Crossan is by far the briefest; see Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21.

38 As we unpack these four areas, we will augment Wright’s rather brief comments with some additional thoughts.

39 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 57. Cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 608, for some similar thoughts that are not quite as hard hitting.

40 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21.

41 For two examples in Luke, the risen Jesus shares with Cleopas and his companion in Emmaus how, according to the prophets, the Messiah had to suffer death and then “to enter into glory” (24:26). Several verses later, Jesus goes through a number of Old Testament texts and makes similar comments (24:45–47). True, some might want to remind Wright of the obvious: since each of the resurrection narratives is much shorter than the rest of that Gospel as a whole, one would expect less of these mentions, so even a few go a long way. Even so, some items still need to be noted: (1) Wright allows that there were a few such exceptions. (2) There are still no citations to particular Old Testament prophets or books being mentioned in the resurrection narratives. (3) Lastly, concerning our two examples above being found only in Luke, Wright could respond that these cases are probably part of the “personal polishing” and light editing that he had already conceded; see Surprised by Hope, 57.

42 Wright, 54.

43 Wright, 55.

44 Occasionally, critical scholars will question the historicity or the value of the women’s testimony. For example, agnostic/atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann thinks that the testimony of the women is a late, apologetically motivated move in Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 118 (see chap. 6, n. 173). These objections are considered in the chapter on the empty tomb. But it will simply be noted, in the spirit of a chapter that is already populated with many examples of critical scholars who freely accept the arguments here, that another agnostic New Testament scholar, A. J. M. Wedderburn, criticizes Lüdemann for his thesis. Wedderburn argues well that rather than being invented for apologetic purposes, Lüdemann’s thesis “crumbles away,” as it is more likely that the women witnesses to the empty tomb “played the major role in the earliest stages of the events of Easter . . . and that the Gospels have retained this tradition despite its shortcomings as evidence. It is far likelier that a prominent role of women, particularly Mary of Magdala, was later suppressed.” Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 57–61 (see chap. 1, n. 42).

45 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 607. The treatment in this text (607–8) is the most detailed of Wright’s explanations of his third point.

46 Some critical scholars have suggested that perhaps the transfigured Jesus (Mark 9:2–9 and parallels) or the Jesus of John’s initial vision in Rev 1:9–20 were transplanted resurrection appearances that were separated from the resurrection narratives. But these certainly seem to be cases of special pleading. There is no hint that either episode was more than a heavenly vision, and though visions are also described throughout the Bible, we do not automatically treat them as resurrection appearances. Moreover, as the transfiguration account ends, Jesus even tells the three disciples accompanying him that they were forbidden to tell anyone about the event until after he had died and was raised from the dead (Mark 9:9–10; Matt 17:9). So the story would have to be wrenched from its context as well. Further, the vision in Revelation depicts Jesus as having white hair, with eyes like blazing fire, feet like glowing brass, with a double-edged sword in his mouth (Rev 1:14–16), plainly an eschatological vision lacking any historical touchpoints! These suggestions certainly appear to entail uphill arguments.

47 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 55.

48 Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chap. 6 (see chap. 2, n. 33); Habermas, The Resurrection: Heart of New Testament Doctrine (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2000), see chap. 5, “Raised Like Jesus.”

49 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21; also, Wright, Surprised by Hope, 56; cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 603.

50 Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:46–49; John 20:21–23; 21:15–17; Acts 1:8. When on earlier occasions Jesus sent out both the Twelve (Matt 10:1, 7–8) and the Seventy (Luke 10:1–2, 9–11, 17), he also told them to preach the Gospel of the kingdom of God, adding that they should freely heal the sick and cast out demons.

51 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 135.

52 Two important items must be noted here. First, in this list of New Testaments texts, this is one of the only places where there is a mixing and matching of some passages that are appreciated by critical scholars along with others that are not. However, this is not an apologetic argument where we are attempting to convince skeptical scholars by using a minimal amount of only their data. After all, even if critics think some of these noncritical texts are of later provenance, or were not written by this or that author, the passages are still very helpful in pointing out the chief ways that tradition was passed on in the earliest church. Our mention of Dunn in the next paragraph, who cites dozens of similar non-critically accepted texts, apparently is making this same point. Second, the majority of these texts were taken from the Gospels, though some were also drawn from various Epistles. While this chapter treats the former subject, the other texts still contribute to the prevailing notion in the early church as to the nature of tradition, which is our overall theme.

53 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 176–81.

54 As even Marcus Borg asserts, “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 59–61, 65–66 (see chap. 2, n. 32). The quotation is from 61; a similar statement occurs on 59.

55 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 177–78.

56 Examples of agnostics alone who hold this view of dates in the 30s for the creedal traditions include Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 140–41, 172, 251; Casey, Jesus, 185, 187; Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 171, 176, 178, 186 (see chap. 15, n. 33); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 113–17.

57 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 57.

58 Casey, Jesus, 81, 90, 108.

59 Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 208 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

60 Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is largely dedicated to setting this thesis on stronger footing throughout. Some key pages include 231–33; 330–35; 341–46.

19

The Gospel of Mark

It was concluded in the previous chapter that new data in recent decades have led many critical scholars to regard the process of Gospel traditioning as having produced a fair amount of usable material in these four canonical texts. However, nuances are certainly needed here. This should not be taken to mean that many critical scholars accept the overall reliability of the Gospels or some such notion, for this is not the case. Exceptions would most likely include evangelical or more conservative Catholic scholars.

So the Gospels are seldom viewed by the larger critical community as being generally reliable. However, the point to be made is that this general view does not affect the critical acceptance of separate theories, pericopes, texts, or smaller portions within the Gospels. These individual slices are often thought to be historical by the same critical scholars, perhaps as the likely teachings or actions of Jesus or of the early church. Thus, acceptance comes on a case-by-case basis rather than because a passage is a part of the whole.

Examples of the latter individual, critical “slices” could include having a more traditional view of authorship on one or more of the Gospels, or at least an openness to a Gospel author having had some contact with the early eyewitnesses, even if the writer’s actual identification is unknown. Other instances within the Gospels that many critical scholars affirm as historically accurate may include Jesus calling people to come and follow him, his in some way being the path to reaching God, Jesus being a healer or an exorcist, his having a personal Christology, or his making particular Christological confessions. It could also consist of viewing positively the likelihood of an empty tomb or of holding that something actually happened to Jesus himself after his death by crucifixion, even if he did not appear bodily.

Among the scholars mentioned in the previous chapter are some of the most influential researchers writing today, including agnostic and skeptical researchers who have still acknowledged many positive items, among them some of the ideas above. One hypothesis indicative of a more positive view that is often called the majority assessment today is the idea that the Gospels are often considered to be examples in the category of Greco-Roman biographies, or Lives (bioi), in spite of there being much variation in this category. Of course, it cannot be denied that there were even greater Old Testament influences on the Gospel authors, even if the genre in which these ideas were expressed were bioi.

Another view that is definitely a majority position includes the existence of dozens of early creedal traditions along with perhaps some of the sermon summaries in Acts. The earliest of these are often viewed as being pre-Pauline and dated regularly even by very critical scholars in the 30s, providing windows into the world of the earliest church. We will take up this topic again in a separate chapter.

So there are scholars in the past few decades who clearly fit along the entire scholarly spectrum, from atheist to moderate to conservative and in between as well. The views of some fall along several places in the continuum. Throughout our Gospel survey, we will treat a wide-ranging overview of several key ideas in each Gospel as well as Acts. We will follow this typical order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Acts. Many of the larger, more involved subjects are left for discussions in other chapters, such as the nature and cause of Jesus’s death, whether or not Jesus was buried, as well as how and where this took place, potential discrepancies in the accounts, details on the nature of Jesus’s body, and so forth. In this chapter, we are aiming more for briefer comments that retain interest for many readers as found in these five books.

The Place of Evidence

One other item should be mentioned before we launch into the Gospel resurrection narratives. N. T. Wright makes this absolutely crucial statement in one of his dialogues with John Dominic Crossan on the resurrection:

I eschew, to the dismay of some, any attempt at a tradition-history of the stories, since trying to write a tradition-history of the resurrection narratives presupposes that we know which elements in such stories must be early, whereas, in fact, we can only know such a thing with the help of an a priori belief about the development of resurrection belief in the early church. And such attempts, in my experience, routinely make the mistake of starting with the assumption of one or another of the revisionist schemes, whose foundations, as I have shown, are built upon quicksand.1

Wright should be commended not only for his insight here, but also for his willingness to state this rebuke, an almost unspoken warning that many scholars no doubt think but seemingly few are willing to address publicly.2 That is perhaps why comments of this nature only rarely reach our ears. Higher critical thinking has changed repeatedly since Friedrich Schleiermacher at the very close of the eighteenth century, taking many twists and turns in the process. The times change and with them the philosophical leanings of the critical crowd. But for many, the denunciations are largely the same.

Wright and Stephen Neill add elsewhere: “Historical study of the New Testament has been long and widely distorted by the acceptance of assumptions which rest on no evidence whatever.”3 This is a topic in itself. But if Wright and Neill are correct here, why should a minority of the most critical interpreters, particularly those who reject the central Christian tenets, have their way if, indeed, they lack the least fragment of actual evidence for their denunciation?

Is it largely because we are simply too modern to believe this or that, as Rudolf Bultmann declared: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.” Just pages later, he adds, “But what of the resurrection? Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history.”4

Of course, this was not Bultmann’s entire message. However, he did speak and write like this dozens of times and made dozens more straightforward comments without any argumentation.5 During his entire program, he regularly failed to produce what would be called historical or other evidence against the New Testament position. Even Bultmann’s perhaps most accomplished interpreter,6 John Macquarrie, levels the following blistering criticism of this theologian’s a priori dismissals of events like the resurrection of Jesus:

Here we must take Bultmann to task for what appears to be an entirely arbitrary dismissal of the possibility of understanding the resurrection as an objective-historical event. He dismisses it because of some prior assumption in his mind. . . . The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. The one valid way in which we can ascertain whether a certain event took place or not is not by bringing in some sweeping assumption to show that it could not have taken place, but to consider the historical evidence available, and decide on that. But Bultmann does not take the trouble to examine what evidence could be adduced to show that the resurrection was an objective-historical fact. He assumes that it is myth.7

This comment by Macquarrie is followed by a few more thoughts on how the resurrection should be approached.8

Not desiring to be guilty of similar a priori dismissals, we will concentrate on utilizing the best-evidenced data to reach our conclusions in this study. One way we will do this is to cite scholars who line up across the theological spectrum on different sides of the issues. Assisting in this process of getting to the heart of some issues here is to pose some major questions along with some preliminary responses.

Is the Gospel of Mark a Reliable Source of Information regarding Jesus and the Empty Tomb?

General statements often do not address with specificity the reliability of particular pericopes or brief texts. Yet, there are a few tendencies in Mark’s Gospel that have drawn the attention of a good number of contemporary scholars. Three of these items that could possibly have a bearing on this question can be mentioned here just briefly.

(1) The vast majority of recent researchers agree that Mark is most likely the earliest of the canonical Gospels and that these volumes were most likely a species of ancient biography. Further, Mark is often preferred by these scholars at least in part because it is frequently thought to be the most reliable of the Gospels, dating approximately forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus.9 As ancient biographies, scholars have noted that the canonical Gospels are dated much closer to Jesus than, say, biographies of Alexander the Great are to their subjects.10 As prominent critical scholar E. P. Sanders remarks, “The sources for Jesus are better . . . than those that deal with Alexander. The original biographies of Alexander have all been lost, and they are known only because they were used by later—much later—writers.”11

(2) Further, while there are of course other positions, a recent survey released in 2020 of over 200 critical scholars who published their views since 1965 indicated that a large majority of New Testament scholars in this study also took the traditional view that this Gospel was the work of John Mark.12 This adds the possibility of a known author with traditional connections to more than one apostolic source.

(3) Besides the early date of this Gospel composition plus the possibility of a known author, the same survey just mentioned also revealed that most of these same critical scholars favored the view that the apostle Peter was in some sense Mark’s chief source for his reminiscences.13 In an earlier text, Raymond Brown also agreed,14 though he nuanced this stance later.15 It is sometimes thought that Peter being singled out by the angel at the tomb may have been a reflection of Peter’s memory of Jesus’s private appearance to him.16 When considered along with the possibility that the Gospel author may also have employed an early pre-Markan Passion source often dated to the 30s or 40s, as per the discussion in this chapter below, this opens up additional possibilities for strong sources standing behind this earliest Gospel, especially being gathered from the end of Jesus’s life. And although Ehrman does not name any specific sources, he states, “Many of the oral traditions found in this Gospel must go back to the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus.”17

Did Mark Intend for His Gospel to End at 16:8?18

The point at which Mark ended his Gospel is probably the best known and perhaps the most pressing question drawn from the final chapter of what most scholars take to be the earliest Gospel. Hence we begin here due to the shadow that this inquiry casts over several other subjects related to the resurrection and appearances of Jesus.

Some of the chief options are that (1) Mark indeed ended his Gospel at 16:8, either purposely or not (for whatever reason), and he did not write any more. (2) Mark wrote beyond 16:8 and we have a good idea what he wrote. (3) Mark wrote beyond 16:8, though we do not know what he wrote beyond some possible guesses. At any rate, his ending is now lost as far as is known. Reginald Fuller suggests some further tweaks here: Mark may have been prevented from finishing this work due to his death, religious persecution, or because of other reasons. The lost ending could perhaps have been due to an accident with the papyri or even to its deliberate mutilation.19 France also lists suggestions such as these, plus sickness or deliberate removal, adding, “We simply do not know, and there seems no point in speculating.”20

Grant Osborne provides a helpful overview of the relevant issues here: he begins by noting that answering this initial question provides an important end in itself, besides very possibly shaping Mark’s meaning for his entire narrative. “Most critics today are convinced the evangelist did conclude his book with verse 8.” Then he adds later, “The belief that Mark ends with 16:8 is so widely accepted that most modern literature assumes it and probes for implications.”21

Osborne lists four reasons, each cited by several major scholars, in support of this popular conclusion. (1) Mark thought that the resurrection event inspired the “awe and fear of God in light of Jesus’ victory over death.” The appearances were simply too awesome even to be described in words. Thus, ending the Gospel with the women’s fear was the perfect way to emphasize these convictions (citing Lightfoot, H. Anderson, and Pesch). (2) Mark’s chief emphasis was not the element of the women’s fear, but the early church’s previous near silence on the empty tomb teaching. Therefore, he was content to hint at the appearances, which were already well-known among believers, to argue on behalf of the women finding the tomb empty (citing Creed, Dibelius, H. Grass). (3) Mark preferred to extend his theme of the messianic secret in 16:7–8 to emphasize the “imminent parousia” (citing Lohmeyer, Marxsen, Perrin). (4) Since only lists of appearances existed in Mark’s day rather than extended resurrection narratives, and sightings of angels often ended in silence and fear, this was the way Mark ended the story (citing Fuller, Wilckens). Osborne mentions William Lane’s suggestion that several other Markan texts (4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:6, 32) also evoked the major expression of fear in response to incidents involving Jesus’s transcendence.22

Approving Osborne’s initial comments regarding the scholarly agreement, Watson also states that “most recent scholars” think that Mark ended his Gospel at 16:8.23 Senior is even stronger in this regard, holding that “almost all modern interpreters agree” that Mark stopped at 16:8.24 Though R. T. France thinks that Mark intended to write past 16:8, he states that this is “the view of all but a tiny minority of scholars.”25 Murray J. Harris identifies the majority view as “virtually unanimous.”26 Carolyn Osiek agrees that there is “a scholarly consensus that the original ending of Mark is at the end of v. 8.”27 Barnabas Lindars utilizes similar words to describe current scholarship and also seems to agree personally with this conclusion.28 Confirming these claims concerning the majority view that Mark’s original text ended at 16:8 are a plethora of critical scholars, from skeptics to conservatives and in between.29

However, then Osborne turns the subject the other way around, noting two arguments that favor a lost ending for Mark’s Gospel. (1) The ever-popular initial linguistic charge is that Mark could not have ended his Gospel with the conjunction gar, “for.” Yet, this objection appears to have been mitigated in recent years. Osborne notes a half dozen major researchers who have located many New Testament examples of sentences or paragraphs that end with gar. (2) Osborne considers some literary reasons to be stronger than this linguistic concern. For example, unless Mark includes additional explanations, the reader does not know how to reconcile the tension of the angel’s command to the women to give the disciples the message that Jesus is risen, combined with the women’s ensuing silence in 16:7–8.

Osborne also introduces a few other considerations favoring the conclusion that this Gospel has been lost. Mark likewise would not leave unresolved the failures in the disciples not comprehend Jesus’s resurrection teaching, the seeming disobedience of the women, as well as indications of a “victory motif” throughout the book, such as Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God, which would otherwise remain unexplained.30

After his survey on some of the many details involved, Osborne opts for the view that the ending of Mark’s Gospel was lost. While some critical scholars such as the early Eta Linnemann and others made suggestions on how to reconstruct Mark’s likely conclusion based on hints and parallels in Matthew and Mark, others like Kurt Aland and Hans Werner Bartsch have disagreed and sometimes strongly so. Although Osborne does think there would be similarities between Mark’s and Matthew’s appearance accounts, in the end there are simply too few answers, such as how Mark’s final verses may have been lost in the first place.31 Perhaps strangely enough, in spite of all the possible endings for Mark’s Gospel, “most critics today would say neither the longer nor shorter endings are the original ending of Mark, both on textual and linguistic grounds.”32

Other prominent scholars also agree that the ending of Mark is lost. Ben Witherington prefers this position,33 as does R. T. France. While France still considers the abrupt ending of 16:8 to be a possibility, his inclination is toward the “increasingly unfashionable minority” view!34 C. F. D. Moule also favors the Gospel’s ending being lost after 16:8, finding the gar ending to be too large of a hurdle to be overcome. Moule is also tempted to think that the beginning of Mark was mutilated and lost.35 N. T. Wright thinks that Mark’s conclusion was broken off and lost and agrees with Moule that this may as well apply to the beginning of the book as well.36 For France, though it is fruitless to speculate on precise details, he thinks that any additional text by Mark would have addressed how the women went from scared and silent to becoming witnesses to the resurrection message, as well as offering details regarding Jesus’s appearance in Galilee.37

Occasionally, a scholar will prefer an either-or scenario here for the close of Mark. Perhaps the most common grouping is to narrow down the question to the two most obvious endings and just leave the matter there: either Mark ended at 16:8, or the original ending was lost for some reason.38 Just slightly differently, Alston thinks “the most reasonable hypothesis is that either Mark was prevented from finishing the book or that the end has been lost.”39 Fenton is not alone when he surveys the responses to the issue but makes no clear decision on the bottom line.40

Did Mark Make Use of Any Earlier Source(s) That Reported Details of Jesus’s Passion, Burial, and Empty Tomb?

One of the most intriguing developments in recent decades on studies in Mark (as well as in each of the other three canonical Gospels) is the rather frequent claim that Mark also could have utilized a pre-Markan passion narrative in his Gospel that may have included details of Jesus’s suffering, crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb.41 It is reported as well that perhaps even the majority of contemporary scholars agree that the available evidence indicates such an earlier source.

There is widespread critical agreement that dozens of earlier sources, individuals, as well as specific texts are either present or at least were consulted in the writing of the Gospels. These include the specific mention of the availability of eyewitness data in Luke 1:1–4, the Acts sermon summaries (particularly in chapters 1–5, 10, and 13), an “M” source employed by Matthew as well as an L source by Luke, the Q sayings in Matthew and Luke, a possible miracles source that appears to be cited by John, and most notably of all, the exceptionally early, pre-Pauline creedal statements in Paul’s Epistles. Traditions like the apostle Peter possibly being Mark’s major referent as well as the apostle John standing behind the Fourth Gospel figure into these considerations too. Granted that a number of these possibilities appear to be majority critical positions due to the force of the supporting data, this is far from an objectionable position, at least on the face of it.

Largely confirming this conclusion in Mark is a major and exceptionally detailed study by New Testament scholar Marion Soards, who surveyed the research of thirty-four influential New Testament scholars and summarized his “positive” verdict that the data did indicate that a pre-Markan passion narrative indeed existed and was employed in the Gospel of Mark. Soards reached the verdict that “we may safely conclude that Mark uses a source in writing his PN [Passion Narrative].” However, even after the minute, painstaking verse-by-verse study that was reproduced, Soards also concluded that the scholars utilized more than one method, necessitating careful nuancing when treating this subject. His final conclusion was still quite positive in spite of the careful qualifications.42

Concerning the origination for this pre-Markan passion narrative, a number of commentators date it quite early. After a detailed discussion, historian Paul Barnett appears to even favor a date in the late 30s, since the name of the high priest is not given anywhere in Mark despite other key persons being named, while Caiaphas was probably the best known among those living in Jerusalem at that time. Thus, the priest probably needed no introduction during these years. In contrast, Matthew does provide his name (26:57). But Caiaphas was deposed in AD 37, which could demarcate this source.43 Though perhaps a helpful consideration here, this seems not to be determinative, at least in the sense of providing solid evidence at this point. William Lane Craig seems also to date Mark’s Passion source in the 30s “given its summary in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5.” Further, there is no contrary data that disputes the reported information.44 Bauckham notes regarding Mark’s Passion Narrative that “many scholars take the view . . . that it goes back to the Jerusalem church in, at the latest, the 40s.”45

This pre-Markan text has some strong argumentative considerations in its favor, garnering much critical acceptance. In historical terms, Mark’s Gospel itself is an early text at just four decades after the crucifixion. Hence, these considerations point more in the direction of additional information that may evidence Mark’s knowledge of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, based at least on the several prior predictions by Jesus in this source. Plus, Craig concludes that this earlier narrative also included a reference to at least one resurrection appearance of Jesus.46 John Alsup comes to some quite similar conclusions for the pre-Markan text, at least from Jesus’s passion to the empty tomb, perhaps even contributing to Mark’s knowledge of the resurrection appearances.47

The intriguing possibility of this pre-Markan source is that it could have significant implications for the early testimony of Jesus’s resurrection. Because such a narrative would obviously predate the composition of Mark, the earliest Gospel, it would push back the account closer still to the events of the first Easter morning. Unfortunately, too much uncertainty surrounds its precise contents and provenance to afford a firm conclusion.

Mark 16:1: Which Women Visited the Tomb?

Just a few brief thoughts are included here.48 Mark mentions the names of three women who watched the crucifixion from a distance—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome (15:40). Shortly afterwards, the two Marys are mentioned again as having observed Jesus’s burial (15:47). Then on the walk to the tomb, the original three (including Salome) are included by name (16:1).

Mary Magdalene appears in the trips to the empty tomb in all four Gospels. The second Mary, mentioned in each of the Synoptic Gospels, is more difficult to identify for sure. Some have argued that she is the mother of Jesus, though some questions could be raised. Mark adds the name of Salome, who is not mentioned anywhere else in the other Gospels, nor is she identified further by Mark. But Mark explains that many other women had also accompanied Jesus on the way to Jerusalem (15:41).49

So the variation in Mark’s narrative makes a good test case. For instance, in the space of less than ten verses, between the crucifixion and the women heading to the tomb, Salome’s name appears in the crucifixion list, though it is deleted from the second list of burial observers before being included again in the third list of observers at the empty tomb. The second Mary is identified as the mother of James and Joses, then as the mother of Joses, and the third time as the mother of James! Obviously then, providing an exact list of names was not necessary. Most of all, informing the reader that a company of other unnamed women had accompanied Jesus to Jerusalem is the final indication that it was not Mark’s intention to give an exhaustive list, or else he would have been required to be far more thorough instead of just saying that there were “many other [nameless] women” there as well.

We return to these issues elsewhere. But as an aside, there are not as many comments as one might expect concerning the number and identification of the women who came to the tomb to anoint Jesus’s dead body. This would seem to be a fair indication that this is just not that much of a concern in contemporary scholarship. France states that, except for Mary Magdalene, there is no certainty regarding the other two names.50

Mark 16:4–5: What Is the Current Critical Stance on the Facticity of the Empty Tomb?

For many years, I have lectured on or published overviews of critical scholars and their positions on dozens of facets pertaining to the resurrection question.51 Many of these trends have been reported as they have emerged from my twenty-year survey of the relevant material published in English, German, or French. On the subject of the empty tomb, the scholarly figures have shifted dramatically in the past few decades.

Many notable scholars have disputed in one way or another the facticity of the empty tomb and its being discovered by the women who came to anoint the body of Jesus. A minority but popular view is that Mark invented the tale in his Gospel narrative.52 Bart Ehrman experienced an intriguing change of heart on this subject. Earlier, he had accepted the possibility and even the actuality of the empty tomb. At the very least, Ehrman had concluded that:

we can say with complete certainty that some of [Jesus’s] disciples at some later time insisted that (a) women from their group went to anoint Jesus’ body for burial and found it missing, and (b) he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.

Their conviction on this matter eventually turned the world on its ear. Things have never been the same since.53

However, while acknowledging that he had once accepted the historicity of the empty tomb, Ehrman has recently changed his position. He seems now to agree with Crossan that “the discovery of the empty tomb appears to be a late tradition” found in Mark.54

While popularity or unpopularity of course does not indicate whether views are ultimately either true or false, many are still interested in terms of the scholarly “lay of the land.” To that end, positions such as those by Crossan and Ehrman are minority interpretations on the empty tomb, especially concerning Mark being the inventor of the tale. Current and recent research indicates that approximately 67 to 75 percent of critical scholars accept or at least favor the historicity of this event.55 But this entire matter of scholarly percentages, and most of all the historical reasons which may buttress each position, is another discussion that we must table for our specific study on that topic.

Mark 16:5: Was the Young Man Seated inside the Tomb and Dressed in White an Angel?

Especially in nonscholarly books of a very critical nature, it is mentioned frequently enough that Christians who assume that someone described as a man should automatically be identified as an angel is a clear indication of how religious folk turn down-to-earth descriptions into mythology. In the other three Gospels, the one or two men at the tomb are called angels, hence due to obvious legendary growth.

However, even critical scholars are clear that the young man here is meant to indicate a heavenly figure. The white clothing certainly portrays purity, and the sense here is that of majesty and transformation (as elsewhere displayed in 2 Macc 3:26, 33; Mark 9:3 at Jesus’s transfiguration; Gos. Pet. 9:36). The young man is seated on the right side, thus indicating more authority. The women’s response of amazement, as skeptical New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann points out, is not because the tomb was empty but due to the extraordinary sight of the man, whom Lüdemann calls an angel. Lüdemann concludes that “this passage is clearly a Markan theologoumenon” though with Markan coloring.56 France states that any other position is “untenable.”57

Mark 16:6: How Triumphal Did the Central Message of Jesus’s Resurrection Sound?

For all the questions that this text in Mark raises, the central focus remains that the angelic messenger proclaimed that Jesus has risen from the dead. Doubtless, we are incapable today of even beginning to understand the women’s frame of mind. The world had just turned upside down. Everything had changed for the better—forever. How could this news ever be trumped?

Even though the women would not have had time to immediately think through all of the ramifications, this certainly must have sounded to their ears like triumph, hope, and vindication! Even crucifixion and death could not prevent this occurrence! Note the passive form of the verb “he is risen” (ēgerthē) indicates that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead. Rather, he was acted upon by another—his Father. We need to return to this notion later. But the crucial question of why God would do something like this naturally introduces the next idea that the Father must have approved of Jesus’s teachings. Hence, vindication and eternal anticipation are certainly in view here.58

Mark 16:7: Was Peter’s Place Restored among the Twelve Apostles?

Many commentators think that a key reason for Peter’s name being included (and even singled out) along with the invitation to the disciples to go to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus, is to emphasize that Peter had been reinvited back into this august group. This would signify themes such as forgiveness, acceptance, and reunion for the premier disciple who had denied his Lord just before the crucifixion. It represents a sort of “happy ending” to the story, before Jesus is taken away from them.

For N. T. Wright, this theme counts among the half dozen indications of how the first Easter looked from Mark’s perspective. The emphasis is on “rehabilitation” for all the disciples, with Peter being specified, in that the entire group had abandoned Jesus.59 Additionally, we will maintain below that the mention of Peter in this context also presages the resurrection appearance to him, as in 1 Cor 15:5 and Luke 24:34.

Are There No Resurrection Appearances in Mark 16?

Kenneth Grayston speaks for the vast majority of scholars when he states that no explicit appearances are found in Mark’s closing chapter.60 But then Howard Clark Kee adds a note of hope regarding the ending at Mark 16:8: “Mark is content to affirm that God will bring Jesus among them again, but he does not depict that event. The faithful reader of Mark is persuaded as to what did happen.”61

Of course, this question depends almost entirely on the verdict to our earlier inquiry as to whether or not Mark ended at 16:8. If he wrote more, then asking why there are no appearances makes little sense, although even then we would still not know any details! Of course, for the majority of scholars who think that Mark meant to stop at that point, perhaps to emphasize a particular theme, then they may continue to wonder if he left behind any textual hints, leading to the next question.

What Indications Are There That Mark Knew and Believed There Were Resurrection Appearances, Whether or Not He Reported Them?

Whether or not Mark originally included narrative accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, it is more than clear to contemporary scholars that he was well aware that these events had actually occurred. As Hurtado contends, “[Mark] 16:1–8 demonstrates that Mark knew and approved of the tradition that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, whether Mark recorded such an appearance or not.” Interestingly, as Hurtado adds, “That Jesus is risen and alive . . . is unambiguously presented in a passage about which there is no textual uncertainty.”62 Where are these hints in a mere eight verses?

Fuller mentions Mark’s comments that Jesus would appear to his apostles in Galilee (14:28; 16:7). Further, the enigmatic reference to Peter (16:7) portends another appearance to the chief apostle.63 Even Grayston agrees with the last point that Mark “probably knew the appearance tradition in part since he awkwardly added ‘and Peter’ to ‘his disciples.’”64

Emerging from their almost covert hiding places in Mark’s Gospel, then, there are at least three indicators (or perhaps even seen as three extended aspects of one loftier point) that Mark was more than aware of Jesus’s appearances to his followers. (1) Mark records a number of occasions where Jesus predicts his own death and resurrection (see Mark 8:31; 9:9, 30–31; 10:33–34; 14:28).65 Since this Gospel was obviously written a few decades after Jesus had died, Mark would hardly have included such false predictions in the accounts if these events had never occurred at all!66 Moreover, if Mark believed that Jesus had not been raised from the dead in the first place, it would be exceptionally difficult to believe that this Gospel even would have been written in the first place! Thus, there is little argument from critical scholars that opposes the view that Mark clearly thought Jesus had been vindicated!

(2) A key indication that Mark knew of Jesus’s appearances came from the angelic word at the tomb. Jesus had earlier predicted his death and resurrection several times. Here the angel repeats Jesus’s prediction, explaining to the women that the time had arrived: the Twelve would indeed see him momentarily. The two messages from Jesus and the angel inside the tomb take slightly different angles. The first is the voice of the Lord explaining ahead of time what would take place after he had been abandoned and crucified. Then, seated inside the open tomb, the angel refocuses the women’s thoughts and steps on where things are going from there. Peter would see the risen Jesus, as would the other disciples as well—Jesus had taught them as much when he was with them.

(3) Further, when the women witnessed the angelic announcement, “Go tell the disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7, emphasis added), they might have inferred from this that Peter was back in the Lord’s good graces. Considering that Peter was one of the disciples as well as his being singled out here, scholars like Fuller and Grayston above have drawn attention to a fairly popular view, namely, the foreshadowing of Jesus’s appearance to Peter. If so, this would then be a well-evidenced, multiply attested event, with the occurrence being referred to here as well as mentioned briefly in two very early creedal texts (1 Cor 15:5; Luke 24:34). Fuller even holds that the initial two appearances to Peter and the Twelve would confirm the first two events in the pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor 15:5) and may indicate further that Mark was not even attempting to present a narrative description of the appearances but was following the pre-Pauline creedal practice of listing the appearances.67 These three proclamations can even be taken as facets of one and the same indication of the resurrection—the predictions, the appearance to the apostles, and the possible hint of the appearance to Peter.

So, did Mark know and understand that Jesus had already appeared to his disciples even though he did not narrate any of the actual events? It certainly seems clear that he did know. Of course, even more questions could be raised if Mark’s Gospel did not end precisely at 16:8.

Especially if 16:8 Is the End of Mark’s Original Chapter, Why Did the Women Leave Jesus’s Tomb While They Were Both Scared and Silent, without Speaking to Anyone?

We have already addressed above some of the issues involved in this question. The chief consideration, once again, pertains to whether or not Mark’s Gospel ended at 16:8. If Mark wrote more, then the question of how to reconcile verses 6–7 is easily one of the major considerations that it seems he would have addressed. The incredible angelic command for the women to go tell Jesus’s apostles that Jesus had been raised from the dead seems a bit opposed to the next verse in 16:8 concerning the fear and silence of the women as they left the tomb. After all, the women did need to testify about this miracle to get the word out. To introduce such a conundrum would seem to require an answer.

Some commentators seem quite sure that the women’s dread and quietness would have melted away and been shown to be quite a temporary state should they have seen the risen Jesus at that point or soon afterward (as reported in Matt 28:9 or John 20:16–17). Needless to say, then, the question of Mark’s ending is a crucial one.

Other potential themes have already been mentioned but not discussed yet: Pheme Perkins notes that “Mark’s Gospel originally ended with the women’s flight and silence.” Perkins raises the question as to whether Mark could possibly have been asking if, “like the male disciples before them, the women have also failed by fleeing?” On the other hand, Perkins notes, “Matthew makes it clear that the women fulfilled their commission (Matt. 28:8).”68 So Mark’s readers are “to complete the story” themselves, based on other clues. For the record, Perkins points out, as eyewitnesses chosen by God for their task, the females were also called to be faithful and had many tasks to perform as witnesses of the risen Jesus.69

More ideas concerning the silence of the women have also been offered. Fuller thinks that Mark may purposely and deliberately have left out the appearances because he wanted the matter to remain a mystery!70 After all, this Gospel is certainly well known for its secrets and enigmatic twists, such as the infamous “messianic secret,” where it was thought that Mark preferred sayings where Jesus could keep his messianic comments and similar opinions from others to a minimum. This was often thought to be due either to the different senses in which this term was used at that time, hence risking much room for confusion, or because Jesus did not desire to share these truths yet.

Gerald O’Collins agrees that the women’s silence was an appropriate response in light of their culture and what they had just witnessed. Further, O’Collins also shares the idea proposed more than once earlier in this chapter, somewhat similarly to Fuller’s response above, where various notions of “disclosure and concealment” fit and confirm Mark’s view of revelation.71 That the women were simply disobedient to the angelic command has also been mentioned frequently.72

Frans Neirynck includes another possible angle on the concept of silence—that apologetic purposes can be served by the nature of this motif.73 On the other hand, Grayston attempts to employ the strange idea that Mark ended his narrative with the women’s silence because he did not want to lend any support to the idea of making Jesus’s tomb a memorial for worship. So Mark “intended to destroy tomb devotion,”74 apparently by directing attention away from that location. But this last response seems entirely anachronistic in more ways than one, such as the lack of support of first-century evidence for this ever being the case with Jesus’s tomb. So with Mark writing a few decades after the event, why would it ever have been an issue?

Commentators often mention that, especially in a Jewish context, the women responded with the proper awe, fear, and respect in the presence of God’s revelatory response revealed at the tomb. Further, in Mark, this is the sort of reaction that is repeated over a half dozen times when Jesus’s glory and transcendence are revealed.75 The women in the Gospels of Matthew (28:5, 8) and Luke (24:5) were also afraid when they encountered the angels at the tomb, and in John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene wept at length and was asked by both the two angels as well as Jesus himself why she was crying (20:10–17). Even the male disciples were fearful (Luke 24:37; John 20:19) and some of them doubted (Luke 24:38b; Matt 28:17b). Thus, each of the Gospels contains related ideas.

So even taken at face value, why is Mark’s narrative thought to be so strange or difficult? Should all of Jesus’s followers, male and female alike, simply and immediately have reacted with total joy? Eventually (and sometimes only moments later), that is precisely what we are told did happen. The disciples were indeed overcome with joy (Matt 28:9b, 17a; Luke 24:41b, 52–53; John 20:20b).

Even today, we may suspect strongly that this same mixture of initial emotions—fear, trembling, bewilderment, precisely in the presence of absolute amazement, mixed with boundless and uninhibited joy—might be the modern reaction as well if the exact same phenomena had occurred. This would especially seem likely in groups with our best friends, where all those present had just witnessed the same supernatural elements along with us. Now imagine all the prior torture and crucifixion of their Lord and best friend that had just occurred that exact same weekend with their dashed and destroyed dreams. In this light, the women’s reaction may actually be counted as being quite restrained!

But then, what if they learned that Jesus was in fact alive and that they would soon get to see him? It may have taken a little while for that message to “register,” but presumably nothing would keep them silent any longer at that point. Dale Allison suggests that in a very similar Greek construction in Mark 1:44, Jesus heals a man but then commands him not to tell anyone, but rather to go to the priest without getting sidetracked along the way. So the sense of the angelic message could have been that the women were to do nothing else before telling the disciples. According to this scenario, the women’s silence lasted only until they delivered their message to the disciples, just as they were instructed. This does make more sense.76

Mark 16:9–20: What about This or Other Endings for the Gospel of Mark?

Citing Harris, there is “virtual unanimity among textual critics” that scholars support none of the other endings for Mark beyond 16:8.77 Depending on how the counts are made, there is some variation on the number of endings.78 But that is of little consequence in that they all lack manuscript attestation. Much of the contents may even be taken from the other Gospels, with the longer ending dating to perhaps the beginning of the second century.79 About the only value here is a study of when and how these endings, in and of themselves, developed or, in the last case, perhaps an early second-century source for the longer ending could still have some value, coming as it may from the time of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, or Polycarp.

One other matter should be mentioned here. Only occasionally has a well-trained scholar defended the last twelve verses of Mark (i.e., pseudo-Mark). Getting the most attention a few decades ago was a volume by former Southern Methodist University New Testament professor William R. Farmer. Even published by Cambridge University Press, the bulk of the book addressed the situation in the first few centuries of the church, especially Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, as well as the earlier manuscript issues. An important essay in part two of this book concentrates on dictional differences between Mark 9:9–20 and the rest of Mark.80

A much earlier example came from nineteenth-century Oxford University professor and vicar John Burgon, who published an 1871 book by the same title as Farmer’s work. It is a rather fascinating read in parts that produces more relevant material than might be found elsewhere, and it assembles a number of mysteries that may be enough to get someone thinking. However, several of the arguments are a bit anachronistic, such as favoring the Byzantine text while criticizing Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.81 Mid-twentieth-century Harvard scholar Edward Hills introduces the volume in a fifty-six-page essay that provides an overview of Burgon’s arguments.82

So the bottom line is that the earliest New Testament witnesses did record several resurrection appearances of Jesus.

While most scholars consider the Gospel of Mark to be the earliest of the Gospels, it is not the earliest witness to the resurrection within the New Testament. Of course, quite significantly, the Pauline Letters are earlier, including the most famous text of all, in 1 Cor 15:3–7. Further, though they are generally very brief, the pre-Pauline and other early creedal traditions, in addition to the Acts sermon summaries, are exceptionally crucial for our purposes due to their being the earliest witnesses of all. They are also authoritative in that some of them speak for the original apostolic community. As such, they reflect the earliest preaching and teaching messages. The majority of these texts address the central gospel proclamation, including remarks on Jesus’s resurrection and appearances.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 15 may even be the earliest pre-Pauline creed of all. It is definitely the one for which we have the best evidence, besides being the most significant tradition for the area of the gospel proclamation. In terms of our study in this chapter, its list of six resurrection appearances certainly predates Mark’s composition.83 Moreover, as mentioned in detail, Mark gives ample acknowledgment of his awareness that Jesus appeared to his followers, whether or not those events were actually described. The bottom line, then, is that there is absolutely no force to any charge that the earliest New Testament writings contain no appearances, even though such is still heard popularly.

The Value of Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Vindication Predictions

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus makes four major predictions regarding his coming suffering, death, and resurrection (8:31; 9:30–31; 10:33–34; 14:28 plus Synoptic parallels), although in the last instance his death is only implied, in addition to the parable in Mark 12:1–12. On other occasions in Mark, Jesus mentions his death by itself (2:20; 9:12; 10:38, 45; 14:8, 21, 30–32 and parallels) and his resurrection is also mentioned alone (9:9). Further, Luke 13:31–33 indicates an apparent L source reference pertaining to Jesus’s death, and Matt 12:38–40 plus 16:2–4 may possibly point to an M source prediction for Jesus’s death and resurrection. In the Gospel of John, Jesus likewise predicts both his death and resurrection (2:19–22; 10:15, 17–18) and, as in Mark, Jesus’s death alone is also mentioned (3:14; 8:28; 12:7, 32–33; cf. 1:29).84 From outside the Gospels, the very early pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 11:24–26 must also be mentioned concerning Jesus’s upcoming death.85

Several considerations favor the authenticity of these predictions by Jesus. For example, many scholars have mentioned that Jesus was well aware of potential factors which could well facilitate his assurance of similar poor treatment from certain others, including the previous Jewish record of having mistreated various prophets during earlier times (Matt 23:29–39; Luke 11:47–51) and the killing of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas (Mark 6:17–28), not to mention the many threats on his own life.86 In fact, Brown thinks “that a Jesus who would not have thought about any of these things would have been an oddity.”87 Beyond the potential abuse, “a figure so God-imbued as Jesus” could also have been convicted deeply that even if he died horribly, he could still “emerge vindicated.” Such a conclusion could be due to “his conviction on this score to his status as the one whom God sent to proclaim the kingdom.”88 Hence, such knowledge and pronouncements on Jesus’s part would even have made decent sense, not to mention any actual foreknowledge which he may have had as well.

Further, there are a number of historical indications that argue strongly in favor of Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection and exaltation. These arguments include, first, a variation on the early source theme concerning Mark’s Gospel. Namely, a rich collection of multiply attested, independent sources for Jesus’s predictions have already been mentioned above. These texts include Mark, Luke’s L source, John, the possibility of both Matthew’s M source and the Q source as well, plus a very early creed in 1 Corinthians 11. This is a strong number of independent texts.

It is helpful on this initial theme to remember Ehrman’s highly instructive comment on what this means in terms of the early dates of these reports: “If a word or action is found in several sources and they did not collaborate with one another, then none of them made it up; the tradition must predate them.”89 Accordingly, Ehrman has pointed out an exceptional number of independently attested historical examples of the well-evidenced data from Jesus’s life, including many relevant and well-established dates,90 Jesus’s family and other background such as the existence of the town of Nazareth,91 and his brother James plus other brothers.92 Moreover, Jesus was baptized,93 was a teacher with twelve disciples,94 worked miracles,95 and preached the kingdom of God, including apocalyptic themes.96 Jesus had enemies among both Jewish and Roman leaders,97 died by crucifixion,98 and his disciples reported that Jesus had been raised from the dead and at least some of them claimed to have seen appearances of him after his death.99 Though Ehrman accepts adoptionistic theses, he also accepts a relatively high Christology being proclaimed regarding Jesus, to the point of including Jesus’s preexistence, exaltation, and even being called God.100

Second, the additional theme mentioned above regarding strong sources existing behind the Gospel of Mark, such as the potential Petrine testimony plus the likely pre-Markan Passion source, also improve the chances that these predictions were actually uttered by Jesus. Obviously, better research foundations could only improve the final product.

Third, at least some of these sources, especially Mark 8:32–33 (but also Mark 9:32 and parallels) are quite embarrassing to the interests of the early church in that they place the apostles and future church leaders in a very negative light. Obviously, Jesus referring to the chief disciple, Peter, as Satan is just such an instance! This makes it unlikely that these accounts would have been invented by the Gospel authors or other early tradition.

Fourth, in addition to the multiple independent sources, multiple literary forms are also apparent in these texts. These include the many Gospel narratives already noted above, a parable (Mark 12:1–12), and a critically recognized early creedal tradition in 1 Cor 11:24–26. Fifth, the contextual consistency and overall coherence of these ideas fit together well, in that similar persecution lessons had already occurred to the Old Testament prophets, as additionally reported by Josephus and other Jewish sources as well as the Gospel witness itself. The mistreatments of God’s messengers, the death of John the Baptist, as well as what Jesus had witnessed in his own life provided enough information to indicate that the handwriting was already on the wall before the crucifixion.

A sixth confirmatory mention should also be made of Josephus’s testimony concerning the Jewish opposition that perpetrated the stoning of James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20:9:1) as a similar case of “prophet abuse.” This additional case provides an example of enemy attestation from a non-biblical writing.

Seventh, the initial three of the four major Markan prediction texts plus Matt 12:38–40 are examples where the predictions are embedded within “Son of Man” passages. Although it is difficult to provide provenance for many of the Son of Man sayings, at least a few of the individual examples are well attested. Further, given the key attestation that these teachings are found in all five of the major, independent Gospel strata (Mark, M, L, Q, and John), plus satisfying the exceptionally strict criterion of discontinuity with its seemingly unique application of this phrase by Jesus to himself, as well as being found in multiple forms (including Gospel narratives, parabolic and apocalyptic texts), there is a firm basis for Jesus having utilized this title for himself.101 This raises the likelihood that one or more of these predictions can be verified in historical terms.

Eighth and last, while very skeptical scholars seldom state it straightforwardly, thereby making it more difficult to be overly dogmatic in judging their intentions, it does seem clear in various critical contexts that having rejected the resurrection event itself appears to be a harbinger for a priori rejections of Jesus’s predictions of this event as well.102 Regardless of the possibility that such critical moves like these have been made, if the resurrection were shown to be a probable historical event, then there understandably should be much less objection to the “lesser miracle” that Jesus predicted this event.

The point to be made here is not simply that the historicity of the resurrection determines the outcome of these discussions regarding Jesus’s predictions. Rather, if the historical event occurred, the prior historical predictions would hardly be an issue while deepening the significance of this occurrence in the sense of helping to provide a worldview outlook for the context of this event. In such a case, Jesus’s previous knowledge would also raise the overall probabilities that he was both a unique interpreter as well as the participant in these occurrences, thus having an additional bearing on his claims regarding himself, such as his being deity and presenting the unique path to salvation.

That Jesus predicted his suffering, death, and resurrection on many occasions indicates several important truths. For starters, both the historical evidence as well as the scholarly agreement are solid enough to persuade Licona to argue more than once that the considerations in favor of these sayings are strong enough data that they ought to at least be considered as candidates for becoming a part of the historical bedrock of which we can be sure.103 Further, these occurrences would most likely indicate that Jesus was well aware of who he claimed to be and the role he played in salvation history. Jesus,104 as well as the early church,105 claimed that his miracles were signs that his Father was confirming his message. After all, as the chief participant who would have been raised from the dead, these events arguably make Jesus the one who is most likely to know the meaning and interpretations of these events. After all, he was not simply a bystander in these occurrences.

Lastly, that Jesus had specific prior knowledge of these events is one of several clear indications that he shared in the overall plan itself along with the inherent worldview significance and meaning of his life. That he stood at the apex of the central proclamation of world history points forcefully to the sorts of rare events that shape the meanings of these and other events, thereby critiquing ideas that fail to measure up to this central teaching. To know ahead of time, understand, interpret, and be the chief participant in the epic event of the resurrection yields huge clues of worldview significance.106

Conclusion

While Mark 16 clearly introduces many original, striking, and even exciting topics in a brief space, a few difficult issues also get raised in the process. Who rolled the stone away when it was in place only a very short time before? Where was Jesus’s crucified and dead body? Who was the young man dressed in white inside the tomb? What did he mean by declaring that Jesus had been raised from the dead, was now alive again, and would appear soon to his followers?

Perhaps above all, did the original text end abruptly at 16:8, whatever the reason? If that is the case, why is the very last word in the Gospel that the women then left the area, scared and silent, not communicating with anyone? While these last two questions appear to introduce the lion’s share of the attention, there are also a variety of very creative responses too.

We will close with some final thoughts on the women’s response as they fled from the tomb. What, exactly, is the chief issue here? Even agnostic scholar Duncan Derrett, writing on the resurrection, notes that the fear and silence of the women were certainly “genuine” emotions.107 Some sort of pensiveness or post-fear response of this nature is possibly even demanded by the situation. If it is thought that the women should have left the tomb at least a little more exuberantly, we just noted that all four Gospels interchange, alternate, and blend similar responses of both fear plus joy. So particularly with editorial perspectives included, who is to judge the appropriate or exact moments along that back-and-forth passionate roller coaster at which different emotions are revealed, and by very different personalities as well, later or even quickly to be superseded by new emotions?

There certainly are a wealth of potential scholarly options as to what was occurring in Mark’s last few verses, as pointed out above. Amazingly, these responses do not divide along liberal-conservative avenues either. But above all, it must not be forgotten that it would have been impossible that the last word on the subject is that the women never spoke even a single word to anyone else, ever again!

Nor could they have remained afraid, especially with the reported appearances of Jesus soon to surface. Really?—they remained silent and afraid forever, concerning the most incredibly positive thing that had ever occurred in their lives? Once we realize the silliness of such a literal charge, we are open to other results, whether or not Mark meant to write them.

So whether the closing note regarding the women’s fear and silence is considered the end of the book, or perhaps one of the oft-suggested, purposeful literary devices used by Mark, or what remains of a broken-off and lost document, it cannot be the case that the women never reported to anyone a single word of their experiences at the tomb or never got over their fear. Whatever the reason for the ending that we possess, Mark 16:8 certainly describes a temporary condition.

Further, we have seen that it is agreed by scholars with few objections, taken especially from Mark’s own hints, that he definitely knew of Jesus’s appearance to his disciples in Galilee and probably of others, perhaps including at the very least the appearance to Peter. Therefore, all told, it is truly difficult to see why this potential situation in Mark 16:8 is considered more than a fairly minor question, perhaps even an original, purposeful emphasis of Mark himself, as opposed to some type of intractable problem.

A few scholars,108 along with many amateur skeptics and blog writers, treat Mark’s ending like a blotch on the resurrection narratives. True, it is scarcely ever viewed by itself as a serious challenge to the historicity of the resurrection appearances, but why does it appear to be even a nagging issue for some? It must not be forgotten that if an unfinished text simply stopped abruptly or prematurely at 16:8, or originally went further, even one more paragraph from Mark could easily have solved the entire issue. But the immediate point at hand is that, whatever the chosen option, the silence and fear of the women would have solved itself naturally without any additional pleading.

Although admittedly far from a mainline view, at least two agnostic New Testament scholars both date Mark at approximately AD 40 or just a few years after the very earliest of the pre-Pauline creedal traditions! Perhaps most intriguingly, James Crossley and Maurice Casey both arrive at these conclusions for mostly different reasons. Crossley largely bases his argument on Markan reflections on the Old Testament law and especially handwashing.109 Casey prefers “the evidence that some parts of Mark’s Gospel are unrevised translations of written Aramaic sources.” Further, Casey is willing to date Mark between the mid-30s and the mid-40s!110

Ending our present discussion here, it should not be overlooked that Mark 16:1–8 includes some early testimony for the crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, and projected resurrection appearances of Jesus. This is the case even if one agrees with the majority of scholars against Crossley and Casey placing Mark so early. Even opting for a traditional date in the 60s to the 70s for the composition of Mark, as do Bart Ehrman and most other scholars,111 three or four decades after the crucifixion is certainly plenty early enough not to discount Mark’s reports.112

This early date is especially helpful if there are also strong reasons for concluding that Mark is a reliably accurate source.113 Surprisingly to some, the majority scholarly view today is that John Mark is indeed the author of this Gospel, and just as Papias reported in the very early second century, Mark’s chief source was the apostle Peter.114 While establishing this conclusion is not at all necessary to support the historicity of the resurrection appearances,115 if it is an accurate assessment with strong reasons to back up this eyewitness testimony behind Mark, the early date just mentioned plus Markan authorship together strengthen tremendously the overall case for some species of general reliability.116

Notes

1 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 20 (see chap. 18, n. 1).

2 Though he is an agnostic New Testament scholar, James Crossley also criticizes contemporary critics for their presuppositions on a date for Mark that is “far too speculative to carry any weight” seeming at times to just arrive at these conclusions simply because most scholars think it must have been written after the Jewish War. See Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 206 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

3 Wright and Neill, Interpretation of the New Testament, 63; cf. also 20–23, 25–26, 29 (see chap. 4, n. 16).

4 Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, 5, 38 (see chap. 5, n. 29).

5 Bultmann, 3–4, 9, 34–37, 39, 41–44; Bultmann, “Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” 28, 35, 46–49, 58, 61, 66, 69–72 (see chap. 5, n. 28); Bultmann, History and Eschatology, 7, 23, 37, 47, 50–52, 113, 118–19 (see chap. 5, n. 28); Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 34, 60–62, 71–72, 80, 84 (see chap. 15, n. 4).

6 Bultmann himself states in the foreword of Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology, that even when he cannot always agree with Macquarrie, the latter is “not only fair and perceptive, but also touches on points that are really problematic and must be cleared up in future discussion.” Bultmann adds, “I have seldom found so unprejudiced and penetrating an understanding of my intentions and my work as in this book. . . . The author’s book is a distinguished performance” (viii) (see chap. 15, n. 4).

7 Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology, 185–86.

8 Macquarrie, 186–89.

9 Ehrman, New Testament, 43 (see chap. 4, n. 34), with Ehrman dating Mark “sometime between the mid 60s to early 70s” (43) and identifying the Gospels as a species of ancient biography (58–59). Also Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 144 (see chap. 4, n. 51). Further on the conclusion of Greco-Roman biographies may be found in Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71); cited by Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?, esp. 3–8 (see chap. 4, n. 43).

10 Some of Alexander the Great’s officers and battle companions during his conquests wrote of his exploits. So far as is known, each of these works was lost and no longer exists today, though they were sometimes known and were utilized by later historians. Unfortunately, these later historians wrote from almost 300 to more than 450 years after Alexander’s life! The problems here should be apparent. Though some of the underlying accounts were much earlier, what portions did the later writers keep, what parts did they reject, and what was recast with perhaps different interpretations entirely? Think of it this way: what if some of Jesus’s companions took notes during Jesus’s life, but the first accounts that contained these notes did not appear until sometime after AD 300, until almost 500? Christians would claim, “Yes, but there were notes from the time of Jesus’s teachings!” And without a single doubt, the critics would respond, “Maybe so, but the first sources to reveal the notes did not write and spin the tales their way until at least 300 years later!” What an absolute field day this would be for the Jesus critics! Details are found in Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:6–12, 129, 132 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

11 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3–4, quotation on 3 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Another example is Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London: Penguin, 2006), 409, 417–19.

12 Pelletier, “Modern-Day Scholarly Opinion,” 2020 (see chap. 4, n. 42). The findings of this study were shared with the author directly by Pelletier on December 30, 2022, and also detailed independently by New Testament scholar Michael Licona, who directed this MA thesis and reported the same results to the author on April 15, 2020.

13 Likewise, Pelletier, “Modern-Day Scholarly Opinion.”

14 See Brown, John, 1:ci–cii (see chap. 9, n. 148).

15 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 158–61.

16 Cf. Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, who mentions several scholars in 205n26, 322 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

17 Ehrman, New Testament, 74.

18 The textual comments on passages from the four canonical Gospels and Acts throughout this section of the volume will only include a few relevant Bible commentaries.

19 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 64–65 (see chap. 10, n. 23).

20 France, Gospel of Mark, 673 (see chap. 10, n. 87).

21 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 56–57 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

22 For these four reasons, see Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 56. Besides the references above, Osborne also mentions other proponents in the text.

23 Francis Watson, “‘He Is Not Here’: Towards a Theology of the Empty Tomb,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 99; Neirynck, “Marc 16,1–8,” 63–64 (see chap. 15, n. 60).

24 Senior, “Crucible of Truth,” 32 (see excursus 1, n. 93).

25 France, Gospel of Mark, 670, 684.

26 Harris, Raised Immortal, 15 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

27 Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 98 (see chap. 15, n. 10).

28 Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” 131, 101, in that order above (see chap. 15, n. 37).

29 Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 201 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” 145 (see chap. 15, n. 43); Crossan, Birth of Christianity, 559–62 (see chap. 15, n. 37); Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 16–34 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Küng, Eternal Life?, 99 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Hoover, “Contest between Orthodoxy and Veracity,” 135 (see chap. 10, n. 56); Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 9–10 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Brown, “The Resurrection of Jesus,” in Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), 1373–77; Brown, New Testament Christology, 167 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Derrett, Anastasis, 131, 135 (see chap. 9, n. 155); Elliott, “First Easter,” 211 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 97–98 (see chap. 11, n. 46); Kee, What Can We Know, 86 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 88, 94 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Johnson, Living Jesus, 134–35 (see chap. 1, n. 19); A. Collins, “Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” 119–48, esp. 128 (see excursus 2, n. 24); Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36 (see chap. 10, n. 70); John Fenton, “The Four Gospels: Four Perspectives on the Resurrection,” in Avis, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 40; Stanley, “To Know Him,” 27–28 (see excursus 2, n. 29); Cranfield, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 167–72, esp. 168 (see chap. 12, n. 34). The following scholars seem to agree: Andrew Lincoln, “‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’: The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel,” in D’Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, 284; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 309–26, esp. 318–19 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Smith, Easter Gospels, appendix (see excursus 2, n. 123); Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 3–36, particularly 32 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb,” 54 (see excursus 2, n. 98); Francis Young, “The Mark of the Nails,” in The Hermeneutics of the Gospel Resurrection Narratives, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 139, 149n2; J. I. H. McDonald, The Resurrection: Narrative and Belief (London: SPCK, 1989), 69, 140.

30 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 58–63.

31 Osborne, 63–72, particularly 63 and 65.

32 Osborne, 59. Larry Hurtado agrees with Osborne here, plus he extends the comment to any of the other variant readings for Mark after 16:8 in the ancient manuscripts; see Mark, 287.

33 Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 135–36 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

34 France, Gospel of Mark, 673.

35 Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 131–32n1 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

36 Wright, “Early Traditions,” 136–37 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

37 France, Gospel of Mark, 673–74.

38 Alistair Kee, From Bad Faith to Good News: Reflections on Good Friday and Easter (London: SCM, 1991), 91; Evans, “Empty Tomb Tradition,” esp. 52–53 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 228 (see excursus 1, n. 19); Hurtado, Mark, 279–85; 287–89.

39 William P. Alston, “Biblical Criticism and the Resurrection,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 162–63.

40 John Fenton, “The Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” in Barton and Stanton, Resurrection, chap. 1.

41 There has been considerable discussion on what precisely this pre-Markan source contained and, in particular, if it included the empty tomb narrative (16:1–8). A helpful summary is found in Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 627–29.

42 Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1523–24 (see chap. 4, n. 40). Soards notes several commentators who conclude that there was more than one pre-Markan Passion source included within this Gospel material, including Rudolf Pesch remarkably finding evidence of “at least seven blocks of preMarcan tradition” in the text here (1499)! Even Rudolf Bultmann argued that this older account in Mark “told very briefly of the arrest, the condemnation by the Sanhedrin and Pilate, the journey to the cross, the crucifixion and death” of Jesus (1494). Still, Licona points out that Soards finds little agreement in the more exact details of Mark’s overall Passion material at this juncture; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 215–16. Other scholars include numerous comments and discussion on these issues, often of a positive nature. Some of these sources include Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 167 (see chap. 6, n. 173); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 104 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Perkins, Resurrection, 115–16 (see excursus 2, n. 111); France, Gospel of Mark, 597–99; Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 127; Guillaume, Luc interprète, part 1 (see chap. 15, n. 28); cf. also Fuller, “Resurrection Narratives in Recent Study,” 102; Neirynck “Marc 16,1–8,” 56–88.

43 Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ, 87–88 (see chap. 17, n. 33).

44 Craig, “Closing Response,” 171–72 (see chap. 16, n. 111).

45 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 243 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

46 Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, 164, 192–95, 220–23, 251–52, 343, 351–52.

47 Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 90, 93–94.

48 Some of the common inquiries, such as the number or identification of the women or angels present at the tomb, or the time of day the incidents occurred, and so on, will be discussed in far more detail in our treatment of discrepancies.

49 France, Gospel of Mark, 663. It appears both Pheme Perkins, Resurrection, 116–17, and Reginald Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 52, 56, consider the slight changes in the Markan lists to be a positive indication of the pre-Markan accounts.

50 France, Gospel of Mark, 664–65. France is one of the researchers who mentions that the other Mary is sometimes suggested by scholars to be Jesus’s mother (664). On another oft-mentioned issue, negative views on the worth of female testimony are found in Josephus, Ant. 4.8.15. France lists on 665 a few other negative sources as well (e.g., m. Rosh Hashanah 1:8 and Shevuʽot 4:1). On the same subject, Wright, 607n55, adds b. Bava Qamma 88a.

51 Earlier in this book, a “scholar” was defined as an individual with a terminal degree in a relevant area of study, hopefully with an accredited teaching position in a college, university, or seminary, and with peer-reviewed publications. Frequently I receive correspondence from “Jesus mythicists” asking me why I do not include “their” scholars in my lists? This question is even more embarrassing when the inquiry is from one of these unqualified persons who assumes he is—perhaps because he writes a blog! While I am more than pleased to include scholars who largely fulfill the criteria that I have defined, such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier, the vast majority of the bloggers and other often-outspoken critics have no credentials at all as far as anyone can ascertain. Interestingly, Bart Ehrman uses a yardstick that is very close in certain aspects to my own. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 2–3, 17–21 (see chap. 2, n. 15)

52 This idea is discussed and evaluated in detail in our treatment of the empty tomb. No scholar is better known for his stance concerning Jesus’s alternate burial plus the rejection of Mark’s empty tomb account than John Dominic Crossan. As examples, see “Dialogue,” 33 (see chap. 10, n. 94); Crossan, Historical Jesus, 392–94 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 392–94, 185, 209; Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8).”

53 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 228–30, quotation on 230 (see chap. 5, n. 43).

54 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 164–69, 184–85, also 7, 141–42, 151, 173–74 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

55 Some examples of my earlier publications that report this percentage of critical scholars include Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 23–24, esp. 45 n. 127 (see chap. 2, n. 33); “Resurrection Research,” 135–53, particularly 140–41 (see chap. 4, n. 4); “Experiences of the Risen Jesus,” 288–97, esp. 292 (see chap. 4, n. 4); “Case for Christ’s Resurrection,” 180–98, esp. 188–89 (see chap. 10, n. 75); cf. “Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection,” 214 (see chap. 4, n. 4).

56 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 112–13, for these and other comments (see chap. 6, n. 173).

57 France, Gospel of Mark, 675, 678–79; cf. Hurtado, Mark, 281–82, 286.

58 For further ideas on Mark and vindication, see France, Gospel of Mark, 279, 284–86; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 408–11 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

59 Wright, 629.

60 Kenneth Grayston, “The Empty Tomb,” Expository Times 9 (1981): 266.

61 Kee, What Can We Know, 86.

62 Hurtado, Mark, 288.

63 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66–68.

64 Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 266.

65 See the excursus on this subject below.

66 Nor would Mark have concocted the predictions on his own, especially repeating them so many times. If he knew clearly that there was no reason to affirm that these previous comments had occurred, he would hardly have placed those claims on Jesus’s lips in the first place, since they would render Jesus a false prophet. By far the best conclusion is that Mark both knew of the predictions as well as at least thinking that Jesus had appeared to his followers, even though Mark may have chosen not to record them.

67 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66–67. Alsup also casts his vote for the option that Mark was aware of the resurrection appearance tradition but “deliberately avoids making narrational use of it” in Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 93–94.

68 Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 31–41. For the quotations, see 36, 32, 33, respectively.

69 Perkins, 40–41. The idea of Mark offering an “open-ended” story has been mentioned by others; see France, Gospel of Mark, 670–71.

70 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66.

71 O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 41 (see chap. 1, n. 19). However, O’Collins also asserts here that the women could not relay the message to the disciples anyway, because they had already left for Galilee. However, this does not match up well with the other Gospel accounts, most of all not with the detailed Jerusalem appearances to the apostles in both Luke 24:36–53 and John 20:19–29. Moreover, whether or not Mark wrote anything beyond 16:8, we do not know for sure his view on the whereabouts of the disciples on Sunday morning, though it appears to make the most sense to conclude from 16:7 that these men were still in Jerusalem. Matthew narrates an appearance to the women in Jerusalem (28:9), but it is even more clear here that the disciples were still in the city (28:10). Perhaps some men had left; regardless, this seems to pose another sort of issue: if the men had left for Galilee no earlier than Friday, the one-and-a-half days between then and Sunday morning is an insufficient time to arrive back there. So how realistic is it for the women to be told to go tell the disciples unless at least some of them were still in Jerusalem?

72 For a couple such charges, see Perkins, Resurrection, 121; France, Gospel of Mark, 684.

73 Neirynck, “Marc 16,1–8,” 56, 63–64.

74 Grayston, “Empty Tomb,” 263–67, particularly 266.

75 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 56; Perkins, Resurrection, 121–23; Hurtado, Mark, 286; France, Gospel of Mark, 682–83.

76 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 304 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Besides Allison, Licona also lists other scholars who suggest this or a similar notion as well, including Bauckham and Hendrikson in Resurrection of Jesus, 346–47. Licona points out a difference with the case in Mark, though. The chief reason the women did not speak was precisely because they were scared. But as Licona states, this must be taken in the Markan context of “fear” and the role that revelation plays in the lives of those who experience it, not to mention the Markan parallel in 1:44 (347). For a more recent treatment by Allison that presents five reasons why the women did not remain silent indefinitely, see Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 125–27 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

77 Harris, Raised Immortal, 15.

78 Depending on how the additional endings are counted, Harris, Raised Immortal, 14–15, lists four endings, whereas Hurtado lists only three in Mark, 290.

79 For a chart of similarities between the longer ending and all three of the other Gospels, see France, Gospel of Mark, 686 in the context of 685–88. Cf. Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36; Hurtado, Mark, 283–90; Harris, Raised Immortal, 14–18.

80 William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Farmer’s book is respected by scholars but is often taken as something like a conspiracy theory concerning the Alexandrian scribes, who, it is argued, suppressed the verses. But as Harris notes, there is no evidence for such a conclusion; see Harris, Raised Immortal, 15. France likewise respects Farmer but makes similar critical comments; see France, Gospel of Mark, 685nn40–41.

81 John Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark according to S. Mark, intro. Edward Hills (London: Parker, 1871). The details are often fascinating, but on the comments above, see 20–21 in the introduction by Hills, plus 148–68 and 371–74.

82 Hills, “Introduction,” 17–82.

83 While the half dozen sightings include Paul’s personal appearance that he apparently added to the end of the list in 1 Cor 15:8 (9:1 being another example), his epistle still predates Mark’s Gospel according to the great majority of scholars; hence he is counted in the list in the statement above even though his appearance was not an original part of the creedal statement.

84 In an especially instructive discussion regarding Jesus’s predictions here, Brown judges that similarities between the Synoptic predictions and those in the Gospel of John probably indicate “a preGospel” collection of sayings from which these different accounts were derived. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1485.

85 The subject of whether or not Jesus predicted his passion, death, resurrection, vindication, or exaltation has been an important area of research during the past few decades. For some of the very best arguments on different aspects of these multifaceted questions, see the edited version of Hans F. Beyer’s PhD dissertation, titled Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection (see chap. 17, n. 83). One of the very best treatments here is Licona’s Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302, 617. For an excellent, more succinct synopsis, see Licona’s article “Did Jesus Predict His Death,” 47–66 (see excursus 1, n. 78). It will only be remarked that at present, the number of scholars in support of Jesus’s Gospel predictions exceeds those who deny these predictions. But once again, as we have clarified and emphasized many times throughout this work, the chief question does not consist of the scholarly numbers or head count, but which views are supported by the better data. Still, some readers enjoy knowing the tendencies in scholarship, and on this question it is intriguing to note the impressive shift in scholarship toward a positive assessment. Why would that occur? One hint regarding some of the most persuasive arguments is that a number of well-known critical and even skeptical scholars have also taken the pro-prediction views. For one example, emeritus New Testament scholar at both Oxford and Duke universities E. P. Sanders points out that the prophecies from both Jesus and the young man in the tomb “implies a resurrection story like Matthew’s.” Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 276, 311n1.

86 These would include examples such as John 5:18; 7:1, 25; 8:37, 40, 59; 10:31–33; 11:8.

87 Cf. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1486–89, quotation on 1488.

88 Brown, 2:1488.

89 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290. Some could potentially question if (or the extent to which) the Gospels or other sources collaborated with one another, but elsewhere Ehrman also points out repeatedly that sources which contain or draw from a combination of texts such as Mark, Q, M, L, John, and Paul are independent or mostly so, and hence qualify according to this statement above, even if they are chiefly or mostly independent in several of the attesting traditions (74–78, 92–93, 111–12, 130–31, 140–41, 163–64, 172–73, 193, 232, 251, 261, 288–93). The authors borrow from other sources and sometimes note it as well, such as Luke 1:1–4; 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3–5, along with more general references elsewhere that tradition is being cited (like 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11–13). These acknowledgments by the authors that other sources are being used by them sound a little like ancient footnotes!

90 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 141, 171–73, 251, 261; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 84, 138–40, 153, 216–17.

91 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 193, 291.

92 Ehrman, 131, 144–48, 291–93.

93 Ehrman, 111.

94 Ehrman, 92, 110–11, 131, 261.

95 Ehrman, 261, 315–17.

96 Ehrman, 162, 263–64, 305, 312, 314–15.

97 Ehrman, 171–72.

98 Ehrman, 92, 163–64, 173, 261, 291.

99 Ehrman, 111, 172, 251; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 48, 132–33, 148–51, 174–78, 183–88, 192, 202–4, 217.

100 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 110–12, 170, 232, 261–62; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 3, 84, 208, 249–50, 279, 370.

101 See Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 233–62 (see excursus 1, n. 56); Robert Stein makes many of these textual points in his succinct article “Jesus Christ,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 629–32, esp. 630–31. Many of Oscar Cullmann’s arguments in his classic volume, The Christology of the New Testament, are still quite relevant for today; see 137–92 (see chap. 11, n. 14).

102 A couple of examples where this appears to be the case include Elliott, “First Easter,” 213–20; Price, Deconstructing Jesus, chap. 7, esp. 221–24 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

103 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 468–69; Licona, “In Reply,” 56 (chap 4, n. 2).

104 See Mark 2:1–12, esp. vv. 5–12; Matt 11:1–6; 12:38–40; 16:1–4; Luke 11:20; 24:45–48; John 5:36–40; 10:17–18, 25–26, 31–33; 11:40–45; 14:9–11; 15:24.

105 For examples, these include the very early Acts sermon summaries in 2:22–24, 32–36; 3:12–26; 4:8–12; 5:17–40; 10:34–43; 13:16–41. See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 20, 29 (see chap. 2, n. 22).

106 As I have argued elsewhere: Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 91–92; The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), appendix 1, esp. 124–25, 133; and “Evidential Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 116–20.

107 Derrett, Anastasis, 64 (see chap. 9, n. 155).

108 James Crossley argues that if the women remained silent, as per Mark 16:8, then there were no real eyewitnesses to the empty tomb! Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 177–78 (see chap. 15, n. 33).

109 Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 206–9; a briefer statement is found in Crossley, “Against the Historical Plausibility,” 178.

110 Casey, Jesus, 80–86, quotation on 83 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

111 Ehrman, New Testament, 43.

112 Ehrman allows historical sources for Jesus’s life until a century after the crucifixion, or until about AD 130 in Did Jesus Exist?, 290–91.

113 As with Casey’s comments in Jesus, 53, 83, 87, 133.

114 Michael R. Licona, “What Are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?,” 25 (see chap. 10, n. 155). Licona checked with several prominent New Testament specialists to confirm this view. Cf. also R. T. France, Evidence for Jesus, 122 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

115 France, Evidence for Jesus, 122–25.

116 As already pointed out, our primary method in this study is to apply the minimal facts method, which has the advantage of showing that the resurrection occurred even if the New Testament texts are unreliable! Nonetheless, establishing even the general reliability of a Gospel would be an additional, independent approach to establishing the historical foundation for the resurrection. As a “backup system” this second approach strengthens the case for Jesus’s resurrection.

20

The Gospel of Matthew

For the majority of critical New Testament scholars, Mark was the first Gospel to be written, between AD 60 and 70, with Matthew and Luke being written perhaps ten to fifteen years later, around AD 80–85. Probably more often than not, Matthew is thought to date just a bit earlier than Luke.1

In Matthew, two women are identified by name as having visited the burial tomb of Jesus, which they find empty. While hurrying away, they encounter the risen Jesus. The account of the guards, a carryover from the previous chapter, is unique to Matthew. Besides the appearance to the women in Jerusalem, Matthew also narrates one more appearance of the risen Jesus in Galilee. Like Luke and the first chapter of Acts, the risen Jesus does offer a final encouragement to his disciples before sending them out to lives of ministry, though there is no ascension to heaven as in these other two texts.

Matthew 28:1–7: The Women

Matthew’s Gospel is the only account that names two of the woman who went to the tomb: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (28:1). Robert Mounce suggests that, following Mark 16:1, “the other Mary” is the same as “Mary the mother of James.”2 There are some differences in the names of the women in the empty tomb accounts. But all things considered, the names of the women are not wildly divergent. As E. P. Sanders pointed out, “a calculated deception should have produced greater unanimity.”3

Matthew’s empty tomb account of the women also seems to be the most straightforward of the Synoptic Gospels. The two women are each clearly attested in the other two Synoptic texts, plus quite significantly, all these accounts plus the Gospel of Peter acknowledge that other unnamed women were also present at the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb. Lastly, no other once-mentioned women, like “Salome” in Mark or “Joanna” in Luke, are named in Matthew.

Matthew 28:9: The Women Meet the Risen Jesus

Matthew could have narrated what may have been the initial appearance of the risen Jesus, though there is some discussion about this. In favor of the two Marys and perhaps another woman or two being the earliest to see Jesus as per Matt 28:9, it would seem from the narration that the ladies running from Jesus’s tomb even before reaching the male disciples would indicate this place of priority among the appearances. On the other hand, the reports from Luke and John necessitate that Mary Magdalene (plus others, as in Luke and John 20:2?) traveled back to the men, who sent their own contingent to check out the tomb and then left again, followed by Mary Magdalene returning by herself, seeing the two angels seated inside the tomb, and then meeting Jesus himself and holding on to him (see below). In short, comparing the two accounts to ascertain which one seems to take less time, it would seem that a “straight shot” from the tomb that gets interrupted by Jesus on the way to the disciples is likely a quicker route than arriving at the men’s location followed by two more subsequent trips to the tomb.

But favoring Mary Magdalene’s second trip to the tomb (by herself) in John 20:11–18 as the time of Jesus’s very earliest appearance is that the long ending in Mark 16:9 specifically calls her the first witness to the risen Lord. True, the longer ending is late and apparently not part of any authoritative report. But there is another tradition, albeit late, that also supports Mary Magdalene being the first witness.4

It may not be possible—or crucial in any way—to ascertain which of Jesus’s resurrection appearances was first. John Wenham argues that while the two appearances to the women were distinct, “Mary Magdalene must be put first (as Mark 16:9 says) and the second [i.e., Matt 28:8–10] must be put at a sufficient interval after the women’s flight from the tomb to allow for all the comings and goings recorded by John.”5 That may be, but notice both the reliance on the perhaps second-century text in pseudo-Mark 16:9 as well as the “sufficient interval” that has to be allowed (some might say “invented”) to count Mary Magdalene’s appearance first, though Wenham could, of course, be correct here.

It is definitely clear, though, that the earliest two appearances were to the women, perhaps both because they had been obedient in a difficult situation and because, conversely, the male disciples had initially fled and were now in hiding. Jesus’s teaching of the first being last and the last being first may be perfectly applicable here (Mark 10:31; cf. 9:35).

Matthew 28:11–16: The Guards at the Tomb

Recorded only in the First Gospel in the New Testament, the story of the guards at the tomb begins in Matt 27:62–66. On the Sabbath, a group of Jewish leaders request Pilate to place a guard in front of Jesus’s tomb to protect it from Jesus’s disciples, who might attempt to steal the dead body or otherwise bungle a situation that they had for so long attempted to alleviate. Strangely, these religious leaders remembered one or more of Jesus’s three-day predictions, the meaning of which we are told more than once that the disciples themselves did not understand (Mark 8:32–33; 9:10, 32; 14:28–31). But enemies may sometimes pay more attention than friends. Pilate grants their request, so they post the guard and seal the tomb with a stone (Matt 27:65–66).

For a few reasons, the guard in the text seems best understood as being a Roman soldier rather than from the Jewish temple guard. The Greek text in 27:65 (especially the words echete koustōdian) seems best considered as a present imperative, indicating that Pilate was saying, essentially, “Okay, you can have a guard,” as opposed to the indicative sense of “Get your own guard.”6 Moreover, regarding what would be another infamous Jewish theological struggle, what would be the benefit of securing the Jewish temple guard in case this word came to Pilate (28:14)? True, Pilate had a potential political stake in whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead, but what makes the best sense is that this comment by the priests was most likely due to their needing to placate Roman soldiers. Also, we will point out below that the seal on the stone would most likely have been Roman in origin rather than Jewish.

After the Sabbath,7 Matthew explains that while the women were on their way to the tomb, there was another earthquake, the second since the crucifixion. An angel who appeared like lightning rolls away the stone. The guards “shook and became like dead men” (28:2–4 NRSV). After the women arrived at the tomb, heard the angel’s message, and left, the soldiers report to the chief priests what they had just seen and are paid handsomely to say that Jesus’s disciples had come in the night and had stolen Jesus’s dead body while they were sleeping(!), with the promise that they would be protected should this story come to Pilate’s attention.8

Then we are told that, even a few decades later when this Gospel was written, this was still the story that the Jews had been circulating widely.9 Craig Keener thinks this entire episode told by Matthew in two parts indicates clearly that “we may be sure that the primary polemic against the Christian claim concerning Jesus’ resurrection was theft of the body.”10 The testimonies of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria further this supposition, especially given the length of the treatments that Matthew devotes to this, plus the likelihood that Matthew employed other earlier tradition behind this material as well.

Of all the Gospel accounts, few are dismissed as summarily as is the account of the guards at the tomb.11 Raymond Brown points out some of the reasons for this sentiment. The story is absent in the other Synoptic burial and resurrection accounts, and Brown thinks that Matthew’s idea of the guards would actually render “unintelligible” and implausible some of the other Gospel comments about the events around the tomb, such as those pertaining to the women going to the tomb if they had known that the soldiers were present. Further, that the Jewish authorities understood Jesus’s meaning when predicting his resurrection, after only brief and intermittent contact, while his own disciples did not understand after much teaching, is also an issue. Further, the “dramatized” appearance of the guards at the tomb and the “apologetic function” of the account also argues against its authenticity.12

Surely, Hugo Staudinger underrates the critical scholarly attitude: “Many exegetes deny that it has any historical basis.”13 William Lane Craig is much closer to the actual sense of contemporary researchers when he states that Matthew’s comments here are “nearly universally rejected as an apologetic legend by the critics.”14 The majority view among critical scholars is certainly to regard as fiction the accounts of the guards at the tomb.15

However, this scholarly tendency by itself certainly fails to recognize that several considerations have been made in favor of Matthew’s accounts here. The most successful and sustained effort to defend the guards at the tomb is probably that by William Lane Craig in his journal article mentioned above, titled “The Guard at the Tomb.” Craig thinks the three strongest objections are that the account in Matthew “is not related in the pre-Markan passion story nor in the other gospels.” Furthermore, as per the comments above by both Raymond Brown and the Jesus Seminar, how did the Jewish leaders understand so clearly what Jesus meant concerning his rising from the dead, while Jesus’s disciples just seem to never get the point? Further, it is also true, as noted by many scholars, that “the story serves an apologetic purpose.”16

But there are also some worthwhile reasons to support the accounts of the guards at Jesus’s burial tomb. While it is the case that there is no confirmation from Mark or Luke, a different form of the story is also found in the Gospel of Peter. While this version is comparably late,17 and not a very reliable account,18 it does provide a minimal amount of independent attestation. Further, Craig notes that “there is a tradition history behind Matthew’s story.” This could potentially provide an earlier source for some of the data that Matthew reports.19 On this last topic, Osborne cites a number of terms from this passage that even very critical scholars such as Ingo Broer think, in Osborne’s words, “proves that Matthew borrowed from tradition (Mark or Q) and wove into a new composition.” Other scholars concur on the point concerning the use of oral or written tradition here.20

Moreover, some of the objections posed against Matthew’s material can be addressed quite easily. As an example, if the guards at the tomb were invented almost entirely as an apologetic for the empty tomb and bodily resurrection appearances, as is so often charged, why does Matthew do such an unpersuasive job with this thesis? After all, the soldiers could have arrived at the very beginning of the burial, on Friday afternoon, rather than coming late, on Saturday. Further, Matthew could also have had the guards check the tomb for a body as soon as they arrived.

Most of all, why not have Jesus appear directly to the Roman guards? Would not that have served a much better purpose of presenting a positive account here? True, the Gospel of Peter goes way too far overboard on this score as the Jewish leaders and scholars (8:4–5), a crowd of onlookers, the Roman guard, and the centurion are all witnesses as three giants—two angels supporting Jesus—emerge from the tomb (9:1–10:5)! That would comprise “a failsafe apologetic,” as Craig notes.21

Additionally, we might add here that it makes no sense to respond that the guards had all fallen asleep on the job and were sleeping so soundly that not a single one of them awoke except to be able to observe, identify, and be absolutely positive that it was Jesus’s disciples who rolled away the stone and stole the dead body. Were the Romans that much afraid of some Galilean fishermen? Did the soldiers fear for their lives? As Keener insightfully quips, “If the disciples did not protect Jesus while he was alive, surely they would not have risked their lives to rob his tomb after his death.”22

Lastly, if the Jewish leaders had just one sustained natural response to offer in place of the very public and unrelenting teaching of Jesus’s resurrection appearances, why adopt this lousy option as the best rejoinder? It is remarked often that perhaps the chief reason for this choice of responses is that the leaders had to at least concede and try to explain the historicity of the empty tomb. After all, any resident of Jerusalem could have confirmed this truth for themselves in a very short time.23

Murray Harris comments regarding the obligatory nature of the negative, “customary” critical attitude toward this account in Matthew’s Gospel: “Such a dismissal is hard to justify . . . apologetic interest and historical reliability are not mutually exclusive.”24 Critical scholars may well wonder about the account, but dismissing it wholesale, especially in light of some of the retorts that may be redirected to this dismissal, is not the best option.

N. T. Wright makes a similar complaint to Harris’s, only in much more detail. He states that while historians always need to be careful concerning “obviously apologetic tales,” additional reflections appear to outweigh this concern in this case. He then mentions four points. Initially, it would be odd to invent this entire story unless the Jewish complaint were already promulgating that the disciples stole Jesus’s dead body. In other words, such a story would most likely arise in answer to an allegation. Further, the story seems to require an actual empty tomb. However, if the empty tomb were only a late story, as many scholars have surmised, why would the story likewise be raised for the first time at such a late date?

Additionally, the entire account is based on Jesus’s predictions of his resurrection from the dead, thus involving his body rather than his spirit alone. And the priests would have to have known about Jesus’s words as well. So if, conversely, Jesus’s body had remained in the tomb and simply rotted, neither an opposing accusation nor a response would even have made any sense at all. Lastly, Matthew would have judged that it was better to answer the Jewish allegation than to simply allow it to go unanswered.

Wright then clarifies that his rejoinder does not argue that the story of the priests paying off the guards must be historical throughout, but only that “it is unlikely to have been invented as a late legend.” Further, the account requires that “the empty tomb was an absolute and unquestioned datum.” Moreover, to attempt to hold to a position like Bultmann’s and to argue against a bodily event altogether would involve such a string of unlikelihoods (Wright names six odd requirements on Bultmann’s thesis) that it would be very difficult to account for this charge plus the corresponding response in the first place. He concludes that Matthew’s account is simpler and more likely than such a convoluted alternate scenario.25

In conclusion, Craig argues concerning the entire matter, “It seems best to leave it an open question.”26 While this may not seem like an overly positive statement at this point, it must be recalled that Matthew’s story of the guards is basically viewed by critical scholars from the very beginning as a hopeless situation. So Craig and others have done a thoughtful job in reclaiming some virtually lost territory on the contemporary playing field!

Though another consideration hardly produces any hard evidence, it may assist with a few relevant details. A marble slab was found in Nazareth in the nineteenth century, without necessarily being produced there. It measures 15 by 24 inches and is apparently the decree of a Roman Caesar, though Brown thinks it probably dates sometime between Caesar Augustus and Septimius Severus, who died in AD 211. However, the paleography points to a most likely window of 50 BC to AD 50, with the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius being suggested most often. Claudius is probably singled out most of all, perhaps because Galilee was not under direct Roman rule in the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius. This is the same Emperor Claudius who kicked Jews out of Rome because of “Chrestus,”27 as per the Roman historian Suetonius and similarly reported in Acts 18:2 (Claud. 25.4).

Beginning with the words “Ordinance of Caesar,” the inscription is a warning declaring that anyone who disturbs the graves of the dead, moves their remains, or disturbs sealed stones or other stones is to be sentenced to capital punishment. If it is an edict of Claudius, why might it potentially be from the town of Nazareth, and why a more solemn punishment decreed on this occasion as opposed to other such Roman warnings of fines paid for grave robbing? Is there any significance to the mention of sealed tombs?

Many publications have appeared over the years analyzing this object and addressing these and other questions. For example, French scholar F. Cumont raises a host of issues. If the warning was decreed by Tiberius or Claudius, and if it originated in Nazareth, is it at least possible that it was placed in Jesus’s adopted town because of reports that he had been raised from the dead? Could it be that reports that his grave was robbed also be a cause of alarm in Rome? Cumont particularly asks why this decree would show up in Nazareth, which is such a little town and surely a location that would be quite unconnected with issues of Roman governance.28

After all, whether or not Pilate wrote a report about these occurrences and sent it to Rome, the story had long made its way around the Mediterranean. Tacitus explains that “Christus” was killed by Pontius Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius, that the Christian teaching nonetheless broke out once again in Judea after Christus’s death, and that Christians in Rome were killed for their faith during the reign of Nero. The story was known all the way to Rome (Ann. 15.44).

Of course, while intriguing, these questions cannot be answered from what we now know. The connections remain, though they are tenuous at best, since there are several places where these scenarios could break down too. We certainly lack the specific data that would come close to making all of the necessary connections. But whether or not this inscription had anything to do with Jesus, the mention of sealing tombs is still very helpful. At the very least, here is a toehold where Matthew’s earlier account in 27:66 touches reality, properly noting at least a verifiable burial practice that was perhaps not widely known. In other words, this Nazareth inscription by no means proves that Matthew is correct regarding what occurred to Jesus’s body, only that one of Matthew’s claims looks like it has some historical roots.29

A few other reasons in favor of the guard at the tomb might also be mentioned. Agnostic classical scholar Duncan Derrett concludes that Matthew’s accounts are “comical,” though he thinks that Jesus’s tomb was perhaps still “guarded” by the young man whom the women discovered there.30 Historian Staudinger asserts that we should not be too quick to assume that the guard accounts were invented. Speaking of the possibility that Matthew may have created the account, Staudinger replies, “According to all our experience of secular history, affairs are generally not quite as simple as that.” Thus, “it must rather be assumed that Matthew’s account of the watch kept at the tomb arose from some sort of actual proceedings.”31

Speaking in evidential terms, then, there are not enough data with which to securely proclaim that the guard-at-the-tomb report in Matthew can be determined to be historical. But it is also premature to proclaim that it must be a legendary story. If Matthew is attempting to use the event as an apologetic device, it fails rather obviously (see above). Just because it is only reported in Matthew alone among the Synoptics certainly does not eliminate it from consideration any more than other one-time reports in the M and L material.

Matthew 28:17: The Disciples’ Doubt

Matthew’s earlier appearance of the risen Jesus was to the women in Jerusalem, who met and touched Jesus on their way from the tomb while delivering the angel’s message to the apostles. The scene of Matthew’s only other appearance of Jesus occurs in Galilee to the “eleven” disciples who met him at the mountain that had been singled out ahead of time (28:16). When Jesus appears, they worship him, though some of them doubt (28:17).

Initially, the doubt itself constitutes an honest report,32 but ought not be an issue. After all, other episodes of such questioning were not rare. Mary’s failure to recognize Jesus upon her return to the tomb could have been due to personal doubts (John 20:14–15), the disciples in Luke doubted even after Jesus stood immediately in front of them and even offered to be touched (Luke 24:41), Thomas’s famous doubting episode arose after his refusal to accept his colleagues’s testimony regarding seeing Jesus (John 20:24–28), and the later, long ending in Mark reports that Jesus reprimanded his disciples for their lack of faith and stubbornness (16:14).

So Matthew’s comment fits rather well into this rather pervasive independent testimony to the disciples’ uncertainty! Even many Christians today would not automatically believe, even if they thought that they had seen personally the resurrected Jesus. Nonetheless, a couple of other matters may also be relevant in the case here of Matthew 28.

For instance, Mounce notes that since the very next verse states that Jesus came toward them (28:18), it is entirely possible that Jesus was a little distance away and as he walked toward them, many of these thoughts may have dissipated.33 Harris agrees, pointing out that the Greek term proselthōn in 28:18a indicates that meaning.34 Others have suggested that, given the mountain scene in the country and Jesus’s prediction that he would meet them there, many more people could have been present who had not yet seen the risen Jesus, including unbelievers. The suggestion is also made quite frequently that this could be where the 500 witnesses from the pre-Pauline list of appearances saw Jesus.35

Keener raises the very insightful suggestion that the sort of doubt depicted here is not the antagonistic, unbelieving variety, but the nagging sort of questioning that Jesus chided the disciples for throughout his ministry (as in Matt 8:26; 17:20; cf. 6:30). Just as the disciples believed in spite of their questions, so these witnesses could too, whether or not there were more present than the just the eleven disciples alone.36 Osborne comments that this sort of doubt “is a central motif in other gospel appearance stories.”37

As a follow-up here, the Greek verb edistasan, “doubted, wavered” in Matt 28:17, appears only one other time in the New Testament, namely, in Matt 14:31 (edistasas). The prefix dis indicates “two” and it means to be divided, hence having the sense of indecision. Note this meaning in 14:29–31, where the context indicates that Peter was doing fine when he stepped out of the boat and began walking on the water, until he noticed the wind and the waves and then he began to sink. Peter had enough faith to get out of the boat and begin walking in the first place, which was no little feat, but then the circumstances caused him to be swayed emotionally. Whatever the makeup of the crowd in Matt 28:16–20, the most likely meaning for the specific term for doubt in verse 17 is, like Peter, to be caught between the two positions of faith and doubt rather than indicating an all-out rejection or unbelief.

This seems to make the most sense of the species of doubt that was being experienced by those who were present in Galilee when Jesus appeared. Matthew’s choice of this Greek verb and how he used it in context (especially in 14:31 of Peter) is our best indication of what is meant by the term. Once again, it points to Matthew being honest and straightforward in his reporting of the apostles’ indecision.38

Matthew 28:18–20: Jesus Meets the Eleven in Galilee, Teaching and Application

In an influential essay written a few decades ago on the resurrection appearance texts in the four canonical Gospels, Cambridge University New Testament professor C. H. Dodd made a now well-known distinction. He classified the Gospel appearance accounts as either “concise” or “circumstantial” pericopes. On the one hand, Dodd argues that the “concise” passages were more brief and succinct accounts “drawn directly from the oral tradition.” On the other hand, the remaining Gospel accounts evinced greater freedom to develop additional details, sometimes telling a story in the process. Dodd concludes that the “concise” resurrection appearance texts were those found in Matt 28:8–10, 16–20; John 20:19–21; and probably Luke 24:36–49, along with pseudo-Mark’s long ending in 16:14–15.39

In addition to the Gospel appearance accounts, Dodd also mentions briefly some texts in Acts 1:3–4, plus several early sermon summaries in Acts 2, 3, 5, 10, and 13 that he identifies as “representing with reasonable fidelity the general type of early preaching.” First Corinthians 15:3–8 is also singled out for special attention, which Dodd terms “primitive tradition.”40 These texts are treated elsewhere in detail.

The Jesus Seminar likewise uses the same term concise (but without citing Dodd) for some of the Gospel appearance accounts and also includes the same first three texts as Dodd’s list. Thus, the Jesus Seminar agrees that the appearances to both the women (Matt 28:8–10) as well as our present text of the Galilee appearance in Matt 28:16–20 are concise. Also like Dodd, the Seminar included texts in 1 Cor 15:3–8; Luke 24:34; and Acts 1, 10, and 13 in the “simple reports” category.41 In these canonical verses above, the Jesus Seminar also seems to be following Dodd very closely.

Note that just because Dodd and the Jesus Seminar often agree where to “rank” the key passages from the Gospels, Acts, and creedal teachings mentioned above, this does not mean that any of the scholars think the historicity of the reported events simply follows. To be sure, Dodd is much closer to judging in favor of the historicity of the events reported in these texts than is the Seminar,42 but there is still not a 1:1 relation here for any of them. Further, while Dodd likewise mentions briefly some of the noncanonical texts, like the Gospel to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Peter, he concludes, unlike the Seminar, that “the material outside the canonical gospels, then, whether in the New Testament or in apocryphal gospels, is of no great importance for our purpose.”43

But it should also be noted here just briefly that while it is no secret that the Jesus Seminar as a whole leans quite far to the left side of the theological spectrum,44 they still have drawn conclusions such as the “appearances of the risen Jesus” or “visionary experiences” to Paul and Mary of Magdalene were “virtually certain” while the appearance to Peter was “probably reliable.”45 Further, the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 was voted by the Seminar fellows as being pre-Pauline.46

As may be appreciated from these chapters on the Gospel texts, the basis for Jesus’s resurrection appearances is really quite strong. That Dodd and the Jesus Seminar could both come to some sort of intermediate agreement on the significance of the Gospel appearance pericopes as concise traditions is significant. The term concise in this context usually has to do with texts that are brief, succinct, to the point, and which lack significant amounts of elaboration, storytelling, or embellishment.

In each of the four canonical Gospels, the truth of Jesus’s resurrection appearances opens the door to one or more lessons of various sorts. The new truths could be anything from lofty theological or other theoretical insights to everyday, practical ministry helps to highly personal applications. The meaning always seems to be that since the resurrection occurred, the world will never look the same or be the same again. This historical event colors all of life, giving our very existence a significance that it has never had for us before. As N. T. Wright likes to repeat, the Gospels teach that “Jesus is raised, therefore God’s new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do.”47 What might that job be for Matthew?

A text that we just looked at above states that when the disciples saw the risen Lord on a Galilean mountain, some of them doubted. The exact same text also states that the disciples worshipped Jesus (Matt 28:17). This appears to be precisely the juxtaposition that we mentioned above. The Greek verb edistasan tends to describe a person who is caught between two views. When Jesus appeared, something made the eleven disciples (and others present?) desire to worship Jesus.

But we ought not miss a crucial key here: most scholars today agree that it was the event of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus that turned the disciples’s worlds absolutely upside down. These events served as the impetus that marked the very beginning of the road that caused these followers to embark on a lifelong ministry, lasting often until their martyrdoms. True, they had certainly been building their views and ideas concerning Jesus throughout his ministry. However, by the time of this meeting, Jesus had only been raised for a brief period of time—hardly long enough to adjust their thoughts and concepts from the reality of his horrible death. Was this short interval between Jesus’s death and this present moment long enough for them to take the absolutely huge step of deciding to worship Jesus? We dare not underestimate the significance of their decision for monotheistic, law-abiding Jews! What happened?

But as mentioned, this same verse also records that some of those present doubted, implying hesitation or wavering, as was Peter as he was torn for a moment between faith and doubt (edistasas). Peter trusted Jesus, or he would never have stepped out onto the water in the first place (Matt 14:28). In spite of that faith, Peter also vacillated as the situation changed very quickly, and the doubt arose in his mind along with the wind and the waves.

Here Matthew portrays an instructive contrast between the power of worship, the emotions that may accompany it, religious doubt, and the passions that may accompany it. It is absolutely a huge topic, and one to which we want to return later in this study. But for now, some brief words from C. S. Lewis are exceptionally instructive and will have to suffice: “Unless you teach your moods ‘where they get off’, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of Faith.”48

The Christian faith is a grounded faith. It begins with truth of various sorts—theological, historical, and even scientific, for starters. Upon this bottom floor of God and his revelation to us, the New Testament definitely moves on to myriad practical topics and personal applications. But the latter follows from the former. The disciples knew this, as there are dozens of moves in the New Testament from the truth of Jesus’s resurrection to the truth of some major doctrine (such as the resurrection of believers, as in 1 Cor 6:14) to practicing Christian truth (like contributing to the needs of other believers, as with 1 Cor 15:58–16:4; Gal 6:10).

Applied to religious doubt, it is because Jesus died and rose from the dead that believers are told to stand firmly in their faith (1 Cor 15:58). As Jesus taught both John the Baptist (Luke 7:18–28) as well as the apostle Thomas (John 20:26–29) during their times of questioning, truth trumps our questions and doubts. Because Christianity is true, there are solid answers to our (hopefully momentary) struggles and that truth should be utilized to bring the untruth into line. As the eleven apostles in Galilee hopefully learned that day, the resurrection indicated that Jesus ought to be worshipped. As Harris points out, “To Matthew, the Resurrection made clear the divine status of Jesus for all to see: Jesus is a legitimate object of worship; God has granted him full and universal authority.”49

With that preamble, an absolutely loaded three verses follow, serving as the very pinnacle and culmination of Matthew’s Gospel. There seems to be a fair amount of scholarly agreement concerning the general points that Matthew is making here, though not always on more specific details. Summing up Matthew’s message, he emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ, which he has tied in throughout his Gospel, the worship of Jesus as deity, the call to discipleship, and the idea of a mission to the entire world, including Gentiles. Some scholars think that at least a portion of these ideas may have included an old (creedal?) tradition.50 The risen Jesus begins with the proclamation that all authority in both heaven and earth has been given to him, presumably by his Father (28:18).

So Jesus would no longer walk and talk while traveling down the sandy paths in Palestine alone, for he was now the Lord of the entire world. Jews and Gentiles alike were to be given the opportunity to embrace him and become his disciples, being baptized into the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. But it should be noted here that all three appellations are used here with the singular Greek noun “name” (onoma). Much has been made of this baptismal formula, though other, earlier Trinitarian formulas do appear in the New Testament (2 Cor 13:13; Gal 4:4–7).

With that authority, Jesus commissions the apostles to make new disciples as they minister throughout the world to all nations (panta ta ethnē). Keener makes the intriguing point that ethnē, “nations,” in this context “probably signifies” peoples rather than our modern conception of nation with borders.51 The two key facets of making disciples involves baptizing candidates and teaching them (28:19). This “great commission” text in Matthew is parallel to Luke 24:48–49; Acts 1:8; and the pseudo-Markan ending (16:15).52

James D. G. Dunn adds that baptism in someone’s name is a strong indication of becoming that person’s follower. Those who followed Jesus by means of the disciples’ future ministry were responding the same way that the twelve apostles had responded earlier to Jesus himself, following him in discipleship.53

N. T. Wright, in a study similar to Dunn’s on discipleship, also arrives at some analogous conclusions. The Jesus who was just crucified in Matthew 27 is the same risen master who now signals the announcement, arrival, and establishment of the Son of Man’s kingdom in Matthew 28. Since the Son of Man is hence the king of our world, then his worshippers, both then as well as now, are to follow and obey his command by taking the great commission message to the remainder of the world.54

Even though Jesus’s disciples of course did not understand all the ramifications of his message at the close of Matthew’s Gospel, it is no wonder that they worshipped Jesus! The scene, occasioned by the obvious resurrection authority of Jesus Christ, must have been stunning. In and through Jesus’s resurrection, the entire picture had just begun to come together for them. As Robertson states, “Matthew’s Gospel closes in a blaze of glory.”55

The Power of Worldviews

Before moving on, it would be appropriate to make an additional distinction here concerning our personal worldview beliefs and the influence and control that they often (if not usually) exercise on our thinking. So often the point is simply missed by virtue of the quite stilted and erroneous assumption that the conclusions of others are always skewed by their illogic, while our views are due purely to rationality and research! However, few thoughts could be so very wide of the mark, as a comparison from this chapter indicates.

We commented above on the contrast between C. H. Dodd on the one hand56 and the Jesus Seminar on the other,57 both of whom categorize Jesus’s appearances to the women in Jerusalem (Matt 28:8–10) and to the disciples in Galilee (28:16–20) as “concise” events. For many if not most scholars, concise characteristics are most often viewed quite positively as possessing the sorts of features that, at the very least, might qualify a text as a candidate to be studied seriously for its potential historical value.58

For Dodd, this is the case with concise texts. In his essay just cited above as well as his landmark little study on the Acts sermon summaries and other creedal texts in the New Testament, Dodd makes it obvious that he takes very seriously the potential historicity of “concise” texts, especially when they apply to these early creedal traditions.59 Yet, Dodd very rarely “shows his hand” in allowing the reader to know where he personally stands on the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection.

In the two texts mentioned here, Dodd pursues about every angle and aspect of these topics as one might like and finds a solid historical basis for the early church’s beliefs. Dodd will explain freely where the apostles and the earliest church were on these topics, but he virtually never addresses or comments on his personal perspective. But there is no doubt that he is open to, respects, and considers these key texts as fertile ground for more historical research and conclusions,60 though he allows the text to do its own “talking.” Nowhere does he impose on this or any New Testament text a series of modern-day rules for interpreting limitations or boundaries for what a passage can or cannot mean.

In contrast, how does the Jesus Seminar handle the same texts? They speak quite similarly concerning the exact same two passages in Matthew and elsewhere being “concise,” while at the same time announcing freely that there is no possible way for true scholars today to accept that Jesus was really raised from the dead. Thus, there is an absolutely huge disjunct between the same data and the conclusions that they draw from them. The data may possibly even lean in one direction, but there is, as it were, an invisible barrier of some sort that militates against certain conclusions being drawn from it. In other words, there is a limit to how far we can go today. How does this work?

Here’s the difference: the Seminar acknowledges the existence of what seems to be the same data as Dodd, even employing the same words as utilized by Dodd, though they will never even begin to entertain the possibility of real resurrection appearances. Sure, Paul, Peter, and Mary of Magdalene, at least, thought and believed honestly that they had seen Jesus alive after his death—no denial there. These events, whatever they were, are even colored red or pink in their second major volume! This is rather incredible, and we have no desire to play that down or act like it amounts to nothing. That the historical texts and other evidence are just that strong is crucially important here.

But then the Seminar rejects the views of Jesus’s disciples on this subject and states clearly, also in red (the premier rating possible), their own statements or rules on this or that subject. Thus, their own previous interpretations and rules do not allow particular conclusions.61 We must be clear here. Unquestionably, we all make up our minds about many subjects, whether or not we agree with others on this or that subject. Further, we all are clearly prejudiced in many ways as we look at the world through our own differently colored glasses. But here’s the chief question before us in this case: should we make up our minds before or after entertaining the evidence and the possibilities?

In the case of the Jesus Seminar, this question is answered clearly for us. In their first major volume, precisely at the outset, they are bold (or honest) enough to explain for their readers that they will be applying to the Gospel texts what they term “the more important rules of written evidence.” These consist of some three dozen guidelines, which the Seminar fellows admit “usually [affect] their interpretation.”62 That is indeed a correct assessment, if not a huge understatement! If we begin by recruiting only scholars from our general outlook, who hold only one set of particular views, particularly when they diverge widely from mainstream scholarship, followed by interjecting the dozens of rules ahead of time that we will reach in our study before even viewing the New Testament text, it may not be much of a surprise what the final result might indicate! As stated by the Seminar fellows themselves right up front, this approach certainly does affect their outlooks and interpretations.

As it turned out, many critical researchers did claim that the Seminar’s approach was seemingly rigged and did not even constitute real research at all.63 Wright observed more kindly than many scholars did, that “a certain amount of gentle mockery of the Jesus Seminar has been the custom among scholars not directly involved.”64 On the other hand, Richard Hays pulls no punches. He explained his thoughts that the volume should be dedicated to the famous circus entrepreneur P. T. Barnum(!) and called the work “reprehensible deception.” Hays charged, “Let it be said clearly—most professional biblical scholars are profoundly skeptical of the methods and conclusions of this academic splinter group.”65

It also should be repeated that each of the Seminar’s “rules of written evidence” was written in red as well, corresponding to the color that it designated throughout the volume for their highest category of truth. But notice, their rules of interpretation were a second source placed next to the sayings that were being judged—as if there was no difference between the interpretation and the data. In other words, this seemed to be an indication that the Seminar fellows did not even notice that their a priori rules that trumped, framed, and guided the overall process actually produced the overall results, because they severely corralled and curtailed how the research must proceed as well as determined ahead of time how it was destined to turn out.66 Again, as Wright points out in a similar manner, their previous prescription caused the entire system “to fit into the picture of Jesus which has already been chosen.”67

So how do their own rules apply to the Jesus Seminar’s beliefs regarding the New Testament’s claims pertaining to the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection appearances? One rule states, “Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place after Jesus’s death are the creation of the evangelists or the oral tradition before them.” In commenting on the text of Luke 24, the Seminar’s additional response is: “By definition, words ascribed to Jesus after his death are not subject to historical verification. . . . Such claims are beyond the limits of historical assessment.”68

Really, that easily? Just like that? Some scholars might be curious to find out precisely how potential postmortem words ascribed to Jesus are unverifiable or untrue by definition. Whose definition is it and what does the definition demand? This is a case of category switching—what some might call mixing apples and oranges. How does a definition actually eliminate someone’s words? If the intent is to rule out the possi-bility of dead people talking, by definition, who made up that rule? Was it simply asserted to be the case? Is it possible that an individual may have no measurable heart or brain function for, say, a half hour, or be underwater for forty-five minutes, and then live for many years afterward telling their story? If that’s possible, then definitions at the very least need some very careful nuancing.

In fact, it sounds like the definition that the Seminar had in mind here was composed by naturalistic-leaning folks, who usually affirm that there is no reality beyond the present, natural world, including an afterlife of any sort. That definition might even follow, if, in fact, we already knew that naturalism or something very close to it were actually true! But how do the Seminar fellows know that naturalism is true? Do they wish to discuss this worldview dispute, or is the New Testament worldview simply something they just do not agree with, and so they decided to eliminate the issue rather easily, “by definition” (which presumably means by their worldview definition)? It sounds more like, just because we say so, due to it being so much easier that way.

One last question: would it be fine with the Seminar fellows if someone asserted just as loudly that since orthodox Christianity is true, again by definition, then there is nothing else to discuss and Jesus’s postmortem appearances and recorded red-letter words in the New Testament are now all automatically true? Obviously this would not be allowed, for the Seminar fellows say on their very first page that the evaluations of critical scholars such as themselves “are not predetermined by theological considerations.”69

Once again, really? Do the fellows of the Jesus Seminar not even realize that their own positions are precisely characterized throughout and “predetermined by theological considerations”? Or are having predetermined considerations only the purview of conservative research? Do any other study groups begin by presenting some three dozen “rules of written evidence” that predetermine what the New Testament texts can mean or how they should be interpreted? The situation seems to be so incredibly obvious that it could be wondered if the seminar makes some of their assertions tongue in cheek? Yet increasing the wondering is that they refer to “neutral observers” being able to verify their conclusions.70 Are they unaware, once again, that everyone wears worldview glasses of some color and angle, so there are no “neutral observers” anywhere in the entire world?

This highlights just a little bit of the problem with worldviews. Unless it is known that our worldview is true, we cannot use it as a baseball bat to club into submission anyone who disagrees. There is no “by definition” to this situation. Definitions do not change events in the real world. Perhaps the seminar fellows just do not wish to debate the matter, or doubt that it is worth discussing.

But it may also be the case that it never even occurred to them that their statements were made only from their own assumed (naturalistic?) perspectives. Accordingly, they should not expect their response to either trump or convince nonnaturalists at all. Nor do their own, highly slanted presuppositions even get the fellows to first base in explaining what to do to explain the “concise” nature of the appearance accounts to both the women and the disciples in Matthew 28, thereby leaving these texts as candidates for historical investigation according to the normal criteria for historiography. Perhaps the Jesus Seminar fellows could explain them, but the texts must be investigated and explicated, not systematically discarded and ignored just because they fail to fit the group’s predetermined, contrived rules.

Conclusion

The last chapter of the Gospel of Matthew closes with the women going to Jesus’s tomb to anoint the body, meeting an angel, and finding the grave empty. They left the tomb on their way to bring the disciples the angelic message that Jesus has risen from the dead, as they had been commanded, and Jesus himself met them on the way. They saw him face-to-face and in their excitement they held on to him and grasped his feet.

The (probably Roman) guards stationed there left the tomb, explained the situation to the priests, and got paid to spread the tale that the disciples came to the sepulcher while they were sleeping and stole away Jesus’s dead body. The last chapter ends with the grand appearance of Jesus to his followers on the appointed mountain in Galilee. Jesus was touched by the women but doubted by the men. If it were a movie or a theater production, the crescendo preceding the end of the story would come with Jesus’s words in 28:18–20, as the risen and victorious Son of God assumed his place of glory.

The purpose of this chapter was by no means apologetic in nature, but rather to simply unpack some key issues and questions as they arise naturally in the course of discussing the relevant items included by Matthew, like those just mentioned. While the historicity of few New Testament accounts is rejected more freely than the story of the guards, there are also some indications that the story was not invented. As it stands strictly in historical terms, it appears to be a bit of a stalemate.

None of the many historical reasons for Jesus’s tomb being empty that first Easter Sunday morning were discussed in this chapter. As with the other Gospel chapters, this is not the place for deliberating concerning potential discrepancies. Although there was no attempt to provide arguments for Jesus’s resurrection appearances, there was some discussion of items that will play a role later in the overall historical case. Namely, the chief aspect discussed regarding Matthew’s two appearances to the women and to the group of disciples in Galilee was that they are both “concise” accounts. As such, they indicate and exhibit one of the more important characteristics for a text to be understood as a potential historical report. Though we will have to leave this particular matter here for now, these are not the only two concise appearance pericopes in the Gospels. So this overall category will play a role in evidencing the Gospel resurrection appearance accounts.

Besides the subject of the concise appearance accounts in Matthew and elsewhere, a final item should also be hinted at ever so briefly. In the last few decades there has been a substantial growth of critical studies that have discovered many reasons to trust the Gospels in general and the resurrection accounts in particular, even among the most skeptical New Testament specialists. A bibliography covering these publications would be simply massive. This is not the place to unpack this. However, one sign is certain specialized moves to date the Gospels earlier (like agnostic scholars James Crossley and Maurice Casey opting for AD 38–42 for Mark and at least Casey preferring AD 50–60 for Matthew).71

Add to this a few other non-Christian, agnostic, and skeptical scholars who have gone on record declaring that the Gospel appearance accounts are looking more and more historical than they have in the past.72 This surprising trend will have to be followed up later.

The result of this and other developments, as Casey notes in a chapter on the reliability of the canonical Gospels, caused him to “therefore conclude that the Gospel of Luke, like that of Matthew, is a major source for our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus.”73

Notes

1 Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 144 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Ehrman, New Testament, 43–44 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

2 Mounce, Matthew, 265 (see chap. 16, n. 73). Matthew also places “Mary the mother of James and Joses” at the crucifixion (27:56), but “the other Mary” appears again at the burial (Matt 27:61), the same as with the empty tomb. Mark has “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses” at the crucifixion (Mark 15:40) and the abbreviated “Mary the mother of Joses” at the burial, and then “Mary the mother of James” going to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1), apparently switching from one child to the other when he is identified the next time! Luke does not mention specific female names at the crucifixion or the burial, but “Mary the mother of James” goes to the tomb (Luke 24:10). Each of the Synoptic Gospels additionally mentions that additional women were also present on these three occasions, though they are unnamed in the specific accounts beyond these mentioned here (Mark 15:40–41; Matt 27:55–56; Luke 23:49, 55). The Gos. Pet. 12:1–2 reports that Mary of Magdala and her friends went to Jesus’s tomb. They also found the stone rolled away, the tomb open, and a “young man” who was seated inside informed them that Jesus was not there, but risen. However, not unlike Mark’s comment in 16:8, “the women fled in fear” (Gos. Pet. 13:1–2).

3 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 280 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

4 While rejecting the literal resurrection of Jesus, the very skeptical Jesus Seminar still holds that Mary of Magdala “is portrayed as the first, or among the first privileged to see and speak with the risen Lord.” In support of Mary’s postresurrection “visionary religious experience” or “appearance” (as it is also called), in addition to Mark 16:9, they also list sources for Mary’s vision or appearance as Matt 28:9; John 20:16–17; and the late Gospel of Mary, which “reports but does not narrate” this appearance (452), which the Seminar dates to the early second century. These texts are termed either “simple reports” or “concise stories” (450), which are positive groupings. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 449–52, 454, 476–78, and 472, for the text of Mary and her friends at the empty tomb (see chap. 4, n. 84).

5 John Wenham, Easter Enigma (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1984), 95.

6 Mounce, Matthew, 262; A. T. Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:239 (see chap. 16, n. 73).

7 What were the disciples doing that first Sabbath after the crucifixion? Were they indeed plotting to steal Jesus’s body? Christians seldom think about the extreme pain, isolation, and forlornness that Jesus’s followers must have experienced on that first Sabbath. While theologian Alan Lewis was himself dying of cancer, he wrote a book that has influenced many readers, titled Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). In a comment on the book itself, Thomas F. Torrence called this volume “the most remarkable and moving book I have ever read”! Another theologian, John Alsup, wrote in the book’s foreword, “You will never again think of Easter as you did before reading this book” (ix).

8 Lest it be thought that the stories of Roman leaders killing their soldiers simply for falling asleep on the job were falsehoods, Luke explains that the apostle Peter was released from his jail cell by supernatural means and so was missing from there the next day. After a thorough search, including interviewing the guards themselves, Herod ordered that the men be executed (Acts 12:1–19, esp. v. 19). But this does not always mean it was a hard-and-fast rule. Tacitus (Hist. 5.22) narrates an incident where some Romans sentinels fell asleep while on duty and there is no mention of punishment, though that constitutes an argument from silence. Brown notes that there was always the chance of striking a bargain with someone or paying them off. See Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1311 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

9 Besides Matthew, this is also mentioned decades later by both Justin Martyr, approximately AD 150 (Dial. 108), and by Tertullian, approximately 200 (Spect. 30).

10 Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 696. Cf. also Keener, Matthew, 397 (see chap. 16, n. 73).

11 The members of the Jesus Seminar colored in black—defined as “largely or entirely fictive” (37)—the accounts of the guard at the tomb in both Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15. The negative marks against these stories were because they were reported in the First Gospel (among the canonical texts, that is, since they are supported by the Gos. Pet. 8:1–11:7), and they express high apologetic content to both combat Jewish claims to the contrary plus to support the empty tomb. Hence a guard or guards at the tomb is called fiction on more than one occasion. In fact, concerning the entire incident, the Seminar states, “This is myth-making at its most prolific.” Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 265–66, 533, the quotation is from 473. A vast number of critical scholars reject the texts, and one has to look hard to find many who defend it.

12 Brown, Death of the Messiah, cf. 2:1310–13 on the question of historicity of the guard accounts; Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 25–26 (see chap. 15, n. 28); “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1373–77 (see chap. 19, n. 29).

13 Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 310 (see chap. 10, n. 76).

14 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 275 (see chap. 9, n. 51).

15 A cross section of some of those scholars who think the account is legendary may be instructive: Reginald Fuller agrees with Rudolf Bultmann on this matter in Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 73 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 177–81 (see chap. 6, n. 151); Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” 138–39 (chap. 15, n. 43); Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 45–46 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 34n17 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship,183 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Robert Morgan, “Flesh Is Precious: The Significance of Luke 24.36–43,” in Resurrection: Essays in Honour of Leslie Houlden, ed. Stephen Barton and Graham Stanton (London: SPCK, 1994), 9; Carolyn Osiek, “Women at the Tomb,” 99 (see chap. 15, n. 10); John C. Lodge, “Matthew’s Passion-Resurrection Narrative,” in The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels, ed. Reginald H. Fuller et al. (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1985), 18; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 12–13 (see chap. 1, n. 19); John Alsup even excludes the guard account from his study because it is heavily redacted and is not an appearance story anyway, in Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 117 (see excursus 2, n. 111); Houlden, “Resurrection: History, Story and Belief,” 63 (see chap. 17, n. 122); even Craig Evans seems to agree with the criticism. See Evans, “Life-of-Jesus Research,” 33 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

16 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 273, 275. Grant Osborne adds that the passage in Matt 28:11–15 “increases the apologetic force of the earlier episode of the guards.” See Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 84 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 638 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

17 The Jesus Seminar predictably dates the “original form” of the Gospel of Peter to the late first century AD! Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 553, 555. Like the Jesus Seminar, Crossan also dates Peter to the mid-first century. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? 193. Bart Ehrman places the Gospel of Peter at AD 120 in New Testament, 120. For skeptics who might conclude that we are utilizing the earlier, more critical dates for the Gospel of Peter because it helps our thesis, notice that Darrell Bock’s date for Peter is not incredibly later, even in the mid-second century AD. See Bock, Missing Gospels, 218; cf. 78–79 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Actually, Bock’s conclusion reflects a date that is much closer to the majority consensus.

18 The Gospel of Peter is not a generally reliable historical text and very few researchers conclude that it is, though critical scholars do sometimes cite a few items here and there that may provide some independent confirmation for other sources. Raymond Brown dates it to the first half of the second century and specifically comments that Mark’s account of the Passion has “a greater historical component” than Peter’s (2:1346), but overall, Brown is generally sympathetic to the Gospel of Peter and includes a copy of the text as his first appendix in Death of the Messiah, 2:1317–49; cf. Wenham, Easter Enigma, 72, 74–75. But even the Jesus Seminar uses black (defined as “fictive” on 37) to color the relevant Passion verses in the Gospel of Peter. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 441–48, 462–64, 473–75, 480. On a list of purported events from Jesus’s arrest onward, only the designated “core event” in each category (which includes the Gospel of Peter more than once), such as Jesus’s arrest; his multiple trials before the high priest, the Jewish Council, and Pilate; Jesus’s crucifixion and death; as well as the appearances of the risen Jesus to his followers, are colored either red or pink. Very few of the specific, individual texts are ever colored red or pink with the exception of the appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 (red, and mentioning 1 Cor 9:1 elsewhere as well; see 458), the appearance to Peter in 1 Cor 15:5 (pink), and a general appearance to “Mary of Magdala” without highlighting a specific passage (453–54, 476–79, 565–68), and none of these specific texts are from the Gospel of Peter. Intriguingly, Paul’s appearance accounts in Acts 9; 22; and 26 are all marked gray (“possible but unreliable,” 37) instead of black (455–458), as is the Johannine appearance to Mary in 20:1–2, 11–18 (470, 475, 478). While a grade of gray is not terribly significant because of its very low rating, at least it breaks the monotony in the sea of otherwise black coloring (defined as improbable, unverifiable, with “a value of zero,” 37, 555)! Hence specific events from the Gospel of Peter do not make the grade. As the Jesus Seminar remarks, “The Gospel of Peter depicts a mythical Jesus” (451). However, in the Jesus Seminar’s earlier volume on Jesus’s sayings, while the Gospel of Thomas was included (though with only three sayings out of 114 judged as red), the Gospel of Peter is not even considered. See Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels (see chap. 2, n. 19).

19 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 274. One potential example is Kankaanniemi, who argues for such a previous tradition behind Matthew’s account in Guards of the Tomb (see chap. 9, n. 51).

20 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 201–2. Cf. also Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 636–37.

21 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 278.

22 Keener, Matthew, 398.

23 As we remarked in the three chapters devoted to German liberalism and the responses to it (both liberal and conservative), this may well have been the worst of all the major naturalistic theses, with very few critics adopting this hypothesis in over 200 years! We note just a few of the more minor reasons above.

24 Harris, Raised Immortal, 19–20 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

25 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 637–40.

26 Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 278–79.

27 This event was discussed in our earlier chapter on the historicity of Jesus.

28 Franz Cumont, “Un rescrit impérial, sur la violation de sépulture,” Revue historique 163 (1930): 241–66, esp. 266.

29 Cumont provides a photograph of the marble slab from Nazareth on an unnumbered page between 242 and 243. Paul Maier includes an English translation of the decree; see Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 202 (see chap. 1, n. 24). Cf. also Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1293–94 for more information and evaluation. For another historian’s thoughts on the subject, see Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 323–24 (see chap. 10, n. 76).

30 Derrett, Anastasis, 59 (see chap. 9, n. 155).

31 Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324.

32 As Wright notes, it is an indication that Matthew is quite straightforward here, not hiding anything; see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 643. But given the best meaning of the Greek edistasan here, as pointed out below, it is not necessary to agree with Wright when he implies that not all the resurrection witnesses (disciples?) believed (693). The term seems to indicate that like Peter walking on the water in Matt 14:31 (the only other time that this same Greek word is used in the New Testament), true believers are still human beings and frequently doubt, question, or are uncertain.

33 Mounce, Matthew, 267. Jesus was presumably much further away (100 yards) when he was seen from the seashore in John 21:4, 8, but the point is that distance can obviously cause some indecision, questioning, and doubts, though of a somewhat different sort than how the word is normally utilized.

34 Harris, Raised Immortal, 21; cf. Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:244.

35 Wenham, Easter Enigma, 114–16; Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:244; Mounce, Matthew, 267. Wright mentions the view that the 500 witnesses could have been there at the same time, but does not provide his view, only noting that Matthew does mention the “eleven” here, without any hint that there were many more. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 642. Licona likewise lists this possibility without necessarily being committed to it; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 322 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

36 See especially Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 716; cf. Keener, Matthew, 399.

37 Osborne seems to agree with Keener here; see Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 88.

38 Harris, Raised Immortal, 21; Os Guinness published a book titled In Two Minds: The Dilemma of Doubt and How to Resolve It (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976). Years later, an edited version of the book appeared as Doubt (Batavia, IL: Lion, 1976). The latest version of this book of which I am aware is titled God in the Dark: The Assurance of Faith beyond a Shadow of Doubt (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1996). This is brought up here for two reasons. First, these are excellent books for dealing with the practical and often very painful episodes of doubt that beset many believers. The second reason is that Guinness opens his volumes by explaining the original title, In Two Minds. He comments, “The heart of doubt is a divided heart” (23 in the latest Crossway edition). After defining several New Testament words for doubt, Guinness mentions the term used in Matt 28:17, defining it as having reservations or “hanging back” instead of jumping in with two feet (25). Just a few lines later, the next section is named: “DOUBT IS NOT UNBELIEF” (Guinness’s emphasis, 23, Crossway edition). I have had probably as many as 600 discussions of various sorts with doubters—both believers as well as unbelievers. (I originally kept track of these in a file, making notes on the many lessons learned.) But to my finite mind, it seemed more than obvious that probably the majority of these who suffered were true believers in every sense of the word, who usually could not handle their emotional what-ifs. Guinness is right that doubt is quite often not unbelief, but has to do more with shared characteristics of both camps. This seems to be the sense of many of those in Matt 28:17, at least those who were described by the Greek term edistasan. After all, when John the Baptist was in Herod’s jail cell at the end of his life and ministry, he sent two of his own disciples to Jesus to ask if he were truly the Messiah (Luke 7:18–30)! But John was hardly an unbeliever. In fact, while John’s two disciples were taking Jesus’s answer back to their teacher in prison, that was precisely when we are told that Jesus issued his famous compliment that no man was greater than John the Baptist (7:28), even precisely while he was perhaps suffering his toughest questions in life. So faith and suffering painful doubts are clearly compatible.

39 C. H. Dodd, “The Appearances of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels,” More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 103–18.

40 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 123–26.

41 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450. The Seminar cites four categories, moving from the most to the least succinct: “Simple reports” such as the early pre-Pauline creedal traditions along with some traditions and sermon summaries in Acts, as just cited above, plus some brief noncanonical accounts like the long ending in Mark 16:9–11, 12–13, and even the Gospel of Mary 7; “Concise stories,” which also includes the Gospel of the Hebrews 9; “Intermediate stories” including only canonical passages; and “Legends,” including Mark’s long ending in 16:14–18 and the Gos. Pet. 9:1–14:3. Incidentally, the Seminar’s moniker for the long ending in Mark is “pseudo-Mark.”

42 This should not be a surprise, since as the Jesus Seminar explains, overall they only gave the highest red (virtually certain) or pink (probable) rating to 16 percent of the total number of events recorded as having happened to Jesus, and only 18 percent of the total number of words that Jesus supposedly spoke. Since the color gray (unreliable) was the next color, this indicates that more than 80 percent of both the recorded actions and words of Jesus were rejected by the Seminar. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 1.

43 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 117–18, quotation on 117. One reason for Dodd’s lack of interest in these noncanonical writings is very possibly because research on these volumes had not progressed overly far when his essay was written and published.

44 Rather than a “right-wing” criticism of the Jesus Seminar, see the especially trenchant critique by Luke Timothy Johnson, Real Jesus, esp. chap. 1: “The Good News and the Nightly News” (see chap. 5, n. 49). For example, speaking of the Jesus Seminar’s first joint work published in 1993, Johnson asks, “What sort of scholarship, then, do we find in The Five Gospels? It is not of an impressive quality” (25). Earlier in the same chapter, Johnson remarks concerning Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar: “Funk’s statements reveal a strange combination of grandiosity and hucksterism” (8).

45 Even given these two phrases, the Seminar does not narrow down exactly what such an “appearance” or “vision” was like, perhaps because more than one nuance was represented by those who were present.

46 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 36, 450–55, 533.

47 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21 (see chap. 18, n. 1). For a couple of books that concentrate on how the resurrection can transform all of life, see Peterson, Living the Resurrection (see chap. 13, n. 55); Andrew Purves, The Resurrection of Ministry: Serving in the Hope of the Risen Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010).

48 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1980), 138–43, quotation on 141. Two other excellent essays on religious doubt by Lewis are: “On Obstinacy and Belief,” in The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1960), 13–30; and especially “Religion: Reality or Substitute?,” in Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 37–43.

49 Harris, Raised Immortal, 22.

50 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, cf. 639; Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 717; Harris, Raised Immortal, 22.

51 Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 719.

52 For these ideas in the previous three paragraphs, sometimes affirmed by more than one author each, see Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship, 121–28 (see excursus 1, n. 34); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 642–46, 618; Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 716–21; Keener, Matthew, 401–2; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 92; Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:244–46; Harris, Raised Immortal, 21–22; Mounce, Matthew, 267–68.

53 Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship, 123–24.

54 N. T. Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 29–31; cf. 112–14.

55 Robertson, “Gospel according to Matthew,” 1:246.

56 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 103–4.

57 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450.

58 Such as Wright, who even cites Dodd’s essay “The Appearances of the Risen Christ” as one of the prime examples of ascertaining the difference between telling a story straightforwardly and doing so in an apocalyptic or other similar, bombastic fashion. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 604–5.

59 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22).

60 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 103, 118, 124, 127, 131–33.

61 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 461–62, 568.

62 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 19.

63 The Jesus Seminar has been absolutely strafed with unfriendly fire from across the scholarly spectrum. Most of it probably came from conservative scholars, though a number of major researchers were among those who attacked the views and methodology of this group as well. For some examples, see especially two devastating reviews of The Five Gospels: Richard B. Hays, “The Corrected Jesus,” First Things 43 (1994): 43–48; and N. T. Wright, “Five Gospels but No Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar,” a critique of Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 83–120; also in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution, ed. by W. R. Farmer (Livonia, MI: Dove, 1995), 115–57. Other critiques included Johnson, Real Jesus, esp. chap. 1; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (see excursus 1, n. 65), see especially the excellent critique on the Seminar’s methodology (29–35); Ben Witherington III, The Gospel Code: Novel Claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004); Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006); Wilkins and Moreland, Jesus Under Fire (see chap. 8, n. 35); Boyd, Cynic Sage (see chap. 15, n. 28).

64 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 30.

65 Hays, “Corrected Jesus,” with the last two quotations being found in part 3.

66 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 16–19.

67 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 33.

68 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 25, 398.

69 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 1; similarly on 34, 37–38, 549.

70 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 34.

71 Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 206–9 (see chap. 4, n. 41), plus other texts of Crossley’s; Casey, Jesus, 90, 107–8 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

72 Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, particularly 79–84, most of all 80 as well as a seeming change of position for Perrin on 83 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:83–86, esp. 84, where he lists the appearances to Paul, Peter, Mary Magdalene, and James as occurrences that “cannot very well be questioned.”; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 15, 28, 95–99, 123–31 (chap. 6, n. 173); Vermes, Resurrection, 111–12, 121–23, 141–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14).

73 Casey, Jesus, 104 (emphasis added).

21

The Gospel of Luke

In terms of total verses, the account of the empty tomb and Jesus’s resurrection appearances in Luke 24 is much longer than either Mark’s or Matthew’s final chapters, and it is only a few verses shorter than Paul’s magnum opus in 1 Corinthians 15. Unlike Mark’s predictions but without any narrated appearances, or Matthew’s account of two appearances in Jerusalem and Galilee respectively, all of Luke’s appearances take place in and around Jerusalem.

Like Mark, Luke also names three women who visited Jesus’s tomb on the first Easter morning, though also like Mark one of the three (Joanna) appears in none of the other Gospel trips. However, all three Synoptic Gospels comment that other women were in the environs, in addition to those that were named in the context. Whereas Mark (counting the young man inside the tomb) and Matthew have one angel each appearing at the tomb, the women in Luke meet two angels there.1 In all three accounts, the stone has already been rolled away. In Luke alone among the Synoptics, an unspecified number of male disciples visit the tomb to check out the women’s story.

Luke 1:1–4: Checking Out the Eyewitness Traditions

It would be difficult to move straight into Luke 24 without at least taking a brief look at the four verses of the Lukan prologue. This initial text represents Luke’s statement that he has done a thorough job studying the many traditions that had been handed down from the eyewitnesses and others concerning Jesus. Luke states that he checked these events carefully, in order that the “most excellent Theophilus” (perhaps a friend, patron, Roman official, or house church leader?) might know the truth of what had been reported.

This prologue has received an incredible amount of attention over the years. Joel Green and Michael McKeever have produced an invaluable tool of categorized, annotated references to more than 500 scholarly research books and articles related to Luke–Acts. Of these, more than 200 are devoted to the theme of Luke’s two volumes vis-à-vis various aspects of the subject of ancient historiography. This is a tremendously helpful aid in ascertaining the direction of scholarship on these crucial themes.2

For example, the two Lukan prologues (including the briefer one in Acts 1:1–2) along with the overall genre have been studied often, usually alongside early Hellenistic literature and historical sources. Sometimes these studies have concluded that Luke and Acts should be categorized as ancient novels of one sort or another.3 But the far more typical conclusions are that these volumes need to be viewed in the mold of Hellenistic thought and literature (and for Luke, potentially as a Greco-Roman biography4) and in Luke’s chief aim to ascertain the truth of the Christian message.5

Not all the scholars, of course, have arrived at the same conclusions regarding the degree of success that Luke’s research achieved. We mentioned that a few writers thought that some Acts accounts read more like a novel, while other researchers have concluded that Luke invented many of the speeches in the book. But a good many critical scholars are quite complimentary of Luke’s historiography. Eminent German New Testament specialist Peter Stulmacher concludes that Luke’s historical material is reliable, even more so than typical Hellenistic biographies.6 For van Unnik, perhaps considering the language in Acts 1:3, Luke does first-rate research of gaining historical data that were “unimpeachable” by the historiographical criteria in his day.7 Robbins is one of the many scholars who think that Luke’s Gospel seems patterned on Hellenistic biography and that Luke utilized this method to defend the truth of Christianity.8 Richard Burridge has done more than any other scholar to actually convince the majority of contemporary scholars that the canonical Gospels are best classified by the Greco-Roman category of bioi.9

Therefore, while critical comments come from a variety of angles, to be sure, the Lukan prologue in 1:1–4 is generally taken quite seriously and respectfully. While that does not mean it guarantees the historicity of the complete contents of this Gospel in the sense of its being generally reliable, it does indicate that scholars tend to write as if Luke has earned the right to be heard, so to speak.

Major Resurrection Texts in Luke 24

Luke 24:1: The Women

As with Mark, three women visit the tomb in Luke to anoint Jesus’s dead body: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (instead of Mark’s lone mention of Salome). Oddly enough though, while both Mark (16:1) and Matthew (28:1) report their names immediately while they are on their way to the tomb, Luke only reports that “they” came after mentioning some unnamed women two verses earlier in the burial account (25:55–56). Moreover, when Luke does mention their names later, he acknowledges that other unnamed women were also among them (24:10).

Actually, this roughly follows a bit of a pattern. In the crucifixion accounts (Mark 15:40–41; Matt 28:55–56; Luke 23:27–28, 49, though without any of the names in Luke), as well as in the burial accounts (Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:55–56, again without any of the names in Luke), a number of women had accompanied Jesus to Jerusalem from Galilee. Referring back to these earlier accounts as required in Luke to explain the pronoun they in 24:1, both Mark (15:40–41) and Matthew (27:55–56), like Luke in 24:10, also point out that other unnamed women were also present.

In light of this tendency in each of the Synoptics, namely the specific acknowledgment that other women were present but unnamed, it is thus apparent that identifying by name each of those who were present at these events was never an explicit goal of the three authors. In the three accounts, then, Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” are each mentioned. Mark adds Salome and Luke adds Joanna.

Luke 24:4: The Angels

Given that the “young man” dressed in white in Mark 16:5 is an angel (as discussed earlier), Mark’s account states that the women witnessed the presence of an angel at the tomb when they arrived. The women in Matt 27:2 also found one angel present who wore white clothing, though he appeared like lightning. Here in Luke 24:4, two young men in “dazzling” (NRSV, ESV) clothing are seen by the women, and they were terrified—two hints that these men were angels too. Solving the issue rather clearly is that these two were identified later as angels (24:23).

Speaking only concerning the number of angels at the tomb (without names!), it is widely acknowledged that the more difficult question would be that of the very existence of any kind of angels in the first place! But if one accepted or at least tabled the existence of angels, there is room inside or outside the tomb so that more than one could have been present. While admittedly these matters are not the only questions in the Synoptic accounts regarding the angels, we will return in much more detail in the chapter on discrepancies to specifics regarding both the women and the angels alike.10

Luke 24:11: The Disciples’ Doubts

The Gospels emphasize most of all the preaching and teaching of the “good news” as proclaimed by Jesus himself (Mark 1:14–15). This message is designed to encourage its readers and hearers to accept and practice Jesus’s teachings. Yet quite amazingly, when the women get to the disciples’ location and tell them about the empty tomb and the angels (as recounted later by a few of the men in verses 22–23), the disciples are very skeptical. Instead of believing the women with open hearts as the greatest message in the world, the men accuse the women of spreading an “idle tale” (NRSV, ESV), or “nonsense” (NIV)!

Here is a case of honesty. Some believers today want to whitewash tough questions concerning their faith, perhaps for fear that there will be difficult interrogations or similar reactions of unbelief when they are proclaiming the message. But the New Testament far from avoids tough subjects. Luke mentions other serious doubts from the apostles themselves when they saw the risen Jesus personally (24:36–42), as does Matthew (28:17), and John too (20:24–29). Such accounts are hardly rare, whether it be Peter’s denials of Jesus before the crucifixion, Thomas’s rejection of his colleagues’ resurrection message, or Jesus’s own family members rejecting him and concluding that he was mentally disturbed.11

On the other hand, we are told that Jesus faced directly the disciples’ resurrection doubts by providing straightforward answers to their questions (Luke 24:36–42; John 20:20, 24–28) and even giving some pastoral encouragement to Peter after his denials (John 21:15–19).12 Likewise, rather than abandoning others who have “fallen” from the faith, believers are commanded to strive to bring them back (Jas 5:19–20), including also dealing with doubters (Jude 22). Today there is much informed material on working through religious doubt.13

Luke 24:12, 24: Some Disciples Visit the Tomb

The story in John 20:2–9 of Peter and John running to Jesus’s tomb to confirm that it was indeed empty may be one of the best known of the resurrection accounts. But the Lukan description of this event involving Peter is more obscure and hence not as well known. One issue that probably does not figure into how well Luke’s account is known is that 24:12 is missing in a few sources, such as the fifth-century Western text D. Still, most scholars seem to treat the text as genuine, many without even a comment, though some register a mild question. It is pointed out, too, that many of the same words are also found in the John 20 account. Most importantly for our considerations is that the two men on the way to Emmaus confirm the story by telling the stranger (Jesus) that “some” among them had gone to the tomb for themselves to check out the women’s story and had found it to be true.14

An aside here needs to be mentioned. Conservative scholars addressing the number of women or angels at the tomb frequently make comments regarding the angels such as, “If there were two, there was one.”15 While that statement is certainly true, the overall effort, without much question, generally tends in the direction of never allowing or admitting any issues or divergences whatsoever—hardly even noticing any differences at all!

On the other hand, critical scholars who tend to be more liberal push the contradiction or discrepancy buttons very easily. On the same issue, when the Gospels provide different numberings of women or angels, time of day, and so on, some immediately contend that there is an error or contradiction here—a “There’s another one” sort of approach.16

Each case must be viewed in its own context and on its own merits. In some pericopes, there is a difference from one Gospel to the next, such as with the Gerasene demoniac. Were there two demoniacs (as in Matt 8:28–34) or only one (as in Mark 5:1–20 and Luke 8:26–39)? The issue in these passages exists because the different texts disagree.

But what if a single Gospel clears up the issue internally on its own? In the text that we have been viewing, only Peter is specifically mentioned by name as having gone back to the tomb to check out matters (Luke 24:12). So if this text had ended here, or if Mark never came back to this account, we would have to consider Luke’s “one” versus John’s “two” disciples. But since Luke 24:24 clarifies that several of the men went back to check out the tomb, we conclude that it is only fair that we allow for at least Peter along with at least one more companion. So this text is helpful in indicating an actual example of how two always includes one. Unfortunately, not all texts are explicated in such a manner, so other hints and sometimes even outright explanations are necessary.

Luke 24:16: Jesus Is Not Recognized

Why did Cleopas and his traveling companion on their way to Emmaus not recognize Jesus immediately? Here in Luke the reason seems to be supernatural—Luke states that they were kept from recognizing Jesus (ekratounto tou mē epignōnai auton), though the long pseudo-Markan ending appears to differ on the reason.17 In this context, it seems that God purposely kept the two men from identifying Jesus.18 For that matter, we could also ask as well about Mary Magdalene in John 20:14–15.19 Many thoughts have been expressed on this topic. Osborne makes the thoughtful point of application that “God permits blindness only until the time is ripe.”20

The nonrecognition question is an intriguing one, especially since there are a few potential reasons, given the differing circumstances. But it could be that in Luke, God caused the event so that the two men could later learn an easy but important lesson about Jesus’s presence. Or it could be a psychological issue—one does not normally go to a funeral and then admit to a friend just a few days later that he thinks he walked and talked for a few miles with a dead man! Potentially, it may simply not occur to someone. It could also be physical—the apostles fishing out in the boat could be excused for not recognizing Jesus when he was 100 yards away (John 21:8). Some paintings depict the situation with Mary, with her looking down or away, weeping and forlorn, without making eye contact, though the text states that she turned around and looked at him but still failed to recognize him (John 20:14).

Another plausible explanation is that Jesus probably did look somewhat different than he did just before his crucifixion. For example, when we have not seen even a good friend for some time and are startled for a moment, a little unsure, we might respond by questioning, “Is that really you?” Paul states that there is definitely a difference of some sort between our physical and our resurrected bodies (1 Cor 15:35–57; Phil 3:21). True, Paul teaches that our resurrection bodies will be substantial, and that it will be our own body too. But that does not mean there will be no changes whatsoever. Paul’s words require change of some sort—after all, seeds are not the same as the plants that they grow into (1 Cor 15:37–44)! When you see your friend after an absence, they are certainly in their same body too, but they still may be older, taller, heavier, bald, and so on. This seems to be a very likely explanation, all things being equal.21

Luke 24:34: Jesus Appears to Peter

We saw earlier the somewhat puzzling charge to the women by the angel in Mark 16:7 to “go, tell the disciples and Peter” that they would see Jesus in Galilee. In Luke 24:34, the two men who returned from the walk to Emmaus with Jesus found the eleven apostles and others, reporting, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” So stories were exchanged regarding the two visits of the risen Jesus just before the key appearance in this Gospel to the eleven disciples and the others who were with them.

But here we must note a special item regarding Luke 24:34. We have mentioned throughout this work that the New Testament is filled with dozens of brief texts that are variously called (though not synonymously) creeds, traditions, confessions, formulae, or sermon summaries. The vast majority of these texts are located in the Epistles and there are different species and various purposes for these invaluable statements, some of which go back to the apostles. This is perhaps due to the work on the Gospels lagging somewhat behind contemporary scholarship being done on the Pauline Epistles, but that is another subject.

As detailed directly below, there is virtually no objection from critical scholars to Luke 24:34 being a tradition that goes back to the early church.22 As pointed out earlier, some of the characteristics used for identifying these creeds include the brevity, recognizable cadence or rhythm, and wording of the sayings, among other indications.23 Concerning this specific case in Luke, Licona points out that a number of these early formulas make statements such as “God raised Jesus from the dead,” citing almost two dozen New Testament references just like this that include some clear creeds, such as Rom 4:24 and 10:9.24 Another indication is that the name Peter is used in Luke 24:12, whereas “Simon” in 24:34 just a few verses later argues for two “different sources or traditions.”25

Luke 24:34 is one of the few creedal traditions found in the Gospels that is recognized as such by critical scholars across the liberal-conservative spectrum. For example, Jean-Marie Guillaume states regarding this text, “La donnée la plus ancienne est la formule kérygmatique. . . . Cette formule est l’une des premières de la Résurrection que nous connaissons.”26 Even John Kloppenborg agrees on another insight: “That Luke 24:34 is pre-Lucan and not a Lucan summary is indicated by the fact that Luke nowhere narrates the appearance of Jesus to Peter mentioned in 24:34.”27

But more significant than the creedal question per se is Jesus’s appearance to Peter, which is allowed regularly even by critical scholars. In just one surprising example of this, the dozens of highly skeptical Jesus Seminar members voted that Jesus’s appearance to Peter should be colored “pink” on their grid of Jesus’s actions, meaning that it was deemed to be a “probably reliable” event. Commenting on this appearance in comparison to Paul’s vision, “the Fellows were inclined to agree that Peter also had a similar visionary experience.”28

Luke 24:36–43: Jesus Appears to the Twelve

In current critical studies, an analysis of a resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples would more likely be taken from 1 Cor 15:3–7 than from the Gospels. However, the attention given to the Gospel accounts has increased in recent years. Various reasons for this expansion would have to include the growing interest in the traditions and other potential sources, plus the presence and influence of potential eyewitness testimony, regardless of the identification of the authors, that lie behind the Gospel data.29

An older but quite influential study on the appearance narratives in the Gospels was published in 1968 by the celebrated Cambridge University New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd. Distinguishing between “concise” and “circumstantial” Gospel resurrection appearances, Dodd argues that the former were “drawn directly from the oral tradition” and were shorter and more succinct, whereas other accounts involved greater freedom to give additional details. “Concise” resurrection appearance texts include Matt 28:8–10, 16–20; John 20:19–21; and probably Luke 24:36–49.30

Along with several of the sermon summaries in Acts depicting the apostolic kerygma plus especially these “concise” appearance accounts in the Gospels drawn from the early, more standardized tradition, Dodd concludes that in his opinion, this last group represents “with reasonable fidelity the general type of early preaching” in the church, including that by the apostles.31

Applying Dodd’s influential study to our two texts here, Luke 24:34 is definitely an early tradition. Luke 24:36–49 is most likely considered a concise appearance account in the Gospels, at least in its core details. In the latter text, while apologetic aspects do appear, the core aspects of conciseness are also present, though modified.32 It has already been noted that Jesus’s appearance to the women in Matt 28:8–10, then to the disciples in Matt 28:16–20 and John 20:19–21, are other examples of concise texts. On the other hand, Dodd judges that Jesus’s appearance to the two men on the way to Emmaus, as well as John’s three accounts of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene on her return trip to the tomb, to “doubting Thomas,” and at the seashore, do not quite make the same grade of “conciseness.”

Besides Dodd’s distinction regarding the differences in the narratives themselves, other signals indicate that Jesus’s appearance to the Twelve is historical as well. There is a high likelihood that John 20:19–21, also one of Dodd’s concise texts, parallels Luke 24:36–43, both occurring later on Easter Sunday evening when the disciples are together (except for Thomas in John 20:26–28, though the group retains the title “twelve” in the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:5). If so, then this appearance to the Twelve is multiply attested by independent sources. There are other appearances to the Twelve too, which could well be additional attestation for the same event, most notably in 1 Corinthians 15, namely, the appearances to the Twelve (15:5) and perhaps another to “all the apostles” (15:7).

Most scholars think Luke and Acts were written by the same person, but Acts 10:38–43 and 13:26–31, 38–39 may also describe the same event as Luke 24:36–43. Acts 10:38–43 has a number of similarities to Luke 24:36–43 (most notably Jesus eating with his disciples and his command to them to preach the gospel message), and why not? Multiple attestation on behalf of Luke’s chief appearance report is strong support.

Though not favored quite as much by critical scholars, the appearance to the disciples as a group is also present in multiple sorts of literary forms. Of course the most valuable form is from the list of Jesus’s appearances in the pre-Pauline, didactic summary of 1 Cor 15:5, 7(?). The other mentions above are narrated accounts of the appearance(s) to the disciples, and as types or forms, these are usually differentiated by critical scholars.33

A lesser indication but worth mentioning are the embarrassing differences in the two scenes between the behavior of the men and that of the women. Of course, during the crucifixion a number of women were present, even if from a distance, whereas it is debatable how many of the disciples were present at all. Afterward, John states that the disciples were hiding behind locked doors “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19 NRSV) and Luke has the disciples “gathered together” (Luke 24:33 NRSV, ESV) and when they saw Jesus shortly afterward, they were “startled and terrified” (24:37 NRSV). In contrast, the women were fearful at times, as mentioned above, though they were the ones who ventured out in public, walking to the tomb and to the disciples (both potentially risky) and doing their jobs! This embarrassment further links the accounts in Luke and John.

Lastly, we have mentioned at some length Luke’s emphasis on historical matters and his assertions that he checked out his sources, including the eyewitnesses (1:1–4). Now we may combine this with the predominant scholarly view today being that the author of Luke’s Gospel and Acts was “a traveling companion of Paul who received his information from Paul and other eyewitnesses who had been with Jesus.”34 What these items contribute is an additional argument indicating that Luke had access to many key persons and historical facts.

So given Dodd’s literary investigation of the concise nature of some of Luke’s appearance accounts in Luke 24:34 and 24:36–43, the backup from multiple attestation of independent sources, multiple attestation of literary forms, embarrassment, and the data favoring Luke’s careful manner of investigation of the data, these are strong considerations favoring the accuracy of his resurrection appearance accounts.

Luke 24:44–49: From Resurrection to Theology and Practice

Another remarkable feature of the resurrection accounts in both the Gospels as well as throughout the New Testament is that this event is linked to virtually every area of Christian theology as well as to practicing the Christian life. Unless one opts for another ending in Mark, we see these applications in Matthew, John, and Luke–Acts. The general idea comes with some slight variations, but basically the overall theme is that since Jesus was actually raised from the dead, then other Christian beliefs variously either followed naturally as a result, were modeled for us, or especially were confirmed to be true through this event. The result is that various actions should be practiced in daily life in terms of personal growth or ministry, just like Jesus did. Several comments attributed to the risen Jesus either have a bearing on or application to theology or practice.35

Not to miss the obvious, in what sort of body did Jesus appear? Few areas in resurrection studies are more discussed, and each of the Gospels contribute something here. Even in Luke alone, these connections are made regularly. On the one hand, Jesus appeared as a normal human being rather than as a ghost or a disembodied shade from Sheol, which is what occurred initially to his followers (Luke 24:37). Jesus corrected those faulty notions initially, indicating his substantiality by talking with them and offering to be touched (24:38–40). Hence it was at least implied that it was possible for them to encounter a substantial body, and other texts witness his being touched. Further, he asked for food and ate in the presence of others as well (24:41–42; Acts 10:41; cf. Luke 24:30).

But Jesus also displayed some other important qualities: he appeared and disappeared at will. He surprised the women who came to the tomb and found it empty in spite of a giant stone that had blocked their path (Luke 24:2),36 and disappeared from the presence of the two men who had walked with him to Emmaus (24:31b). He appeared through locked doors and startled the disciples (24:36). Finally, he disappeared for good, or in Luke’s case, ascended (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9). Later, he appeared quite suddenly, likewise surprising and stunning Paul and his traveling companions while they were on their way to persecute Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18). Nor was he always recognized immediately (Luke 24:15–16).

However, N. T. Wright notes that a couple of elements appear to be missing in the Gospels on this subject of Jesus’s resurrection body. First, whereas it is taught frequently in the remainder of the New Testament that believers will be raised like Jesus, even in a body like his, this direct application is missing in the resurrection chapters of each Gospel. Second, the key Old Testament text for the resurrection of the righteous among Old Testament Jews is Dan 12:2, where believers will shine like the stars forever and ever. Yet surprisingly, none of the Gospel resurrection appearance texts depict the risen Jesus as being endowed with or surrounded by anything like a bright light or a halo, as the classic paintings often depict him.37

For Wright, these are a couple of the four examples that show how “primitive” these underlying Gospel traditions are, calling them “essentially very early, pre-Pauline, and have not been substantially altered except for light personal polishing, in subsequent transmission or editing. . . . The stories, though lightly edited and written down later, are basically very, very early.”38 Elsewhere, Wright asserts, “None of these four features can be explained, I’ve argued, if the stories are as late in origin even as the fifties, let alone as the seventies, eighties, or nineties, as some have persisted in arguing.”39

In two of his encounters with his followers, with Cleopas and his companion on the way to Emmaus (24:25–27, 32) and with the Twelve (24:44–47), Jesus develops the idea in some detail that his followers should have been more aware of what had been taught about him in the Old Testament Scriptures. In particular, both times that day Jesus especially emphasizes examples that depicted his suffering, death, and resurrection. Jesus implies that this had apparently been neglected by his disciples.

Certainly we might add that the Old Testament harbingers of the Messiah that Jesus may have pointed to are likewise a topic that we rarely hear about today, at least among scholars. So would the risen Jesus have delivered the same message to believers in our day? Could this be something like Revelation 2–3, as in a current word to us? If so, what texts and applications might Jesus cite from the Old Testament? The comment seems to be made often enough that this would be a sermon that many believers would love to hear Jesus teach. But would it be an uncomfortable message as well?

N. T. Wright raises another question here: why would the resurrection appearance accounts eschew any actual references to Old Testament Scripture being fulfilled? After all, words such as “it was fulfilled which was spoken by,” or simply, “it is written,” reverberate through many Gospel passages (such as Luke 3:4–6; 4:17–20; 7:27; 20:17–19, 41–44; 22:37). So especially with the risen Jesus twice telling his followers rather firmly that they should know what was written about him in the Old Testament, why are none of these passages actually mentioned as being fulfilled by Jesus?40

Another theme in Luke 24:30–31 is that of the Lord’s Supper, a meal perhaps fresh in the minds of the two disciples in Emmaus, whether or not they had been present on that very special evening or just learned about it later. Even in a general sense, what caught their attention could have been the distinctive way in which Jesus blessed, broke, and passed out bread before eating (see Luke 9:16). Whether just having been present a few days previously with the disciples or on another occasion, Jesus’s distinct practice was somehow very striking to the two men. Luke no doubt saw special significance in the self-revealing nature of this occurrence.

Still another key application indicates a message as prominent as any, one that is virtually always present in extended passages on the resurrection. Among the canonical writings, it is found in Matthew, John, Luke, and Acts. This is Jesus’s repeated pronouncement that the disciples will be his witnesses and, as such, they will take his gospel message of repentance and forgiveness of sins to the world (Luke 24:47–48; cf. Acts 1:8).

This squarely indispensable Gospel theme, for example, is the focal point of each of the Acts sermon summaries as well as the vast majority of the early creedal statements.41 Having posed the question as to identifying the “central content of faith,” Cullmann points out, “The points in common, which are regularly repeated in the oldest formulas, however short they may be, represent the essential elements of the evangelical Gospel as the earliest Christians understood it.”42 Specifying, Cullmann adds, “We can conclude that the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ and His elevation to the dignity of Kyrios, as a consequence of His death and resurrection, are the two essential elements in the majority of the confessions of the first century.”43

Dodd concludes similarly to Cullmann regarding the earliest Christian message. Categorizing and summarizing the heart of the earliest kerygmatic message, Dodd also emphasizes the “divinely accredited” ministry of Jesus, including his death and his resurrection. As a result, featuring the apologetic angle mentioned above, the resurrection indicates that “Jesus has been exalted at the right hand of God. . . . God has made Him Lord and Christ.” Moreover, “this is what the author of Acts meant by ‘preaching the Kingdom of God.’” Here we have the “framework within which the Jerusalem kerygma is set.”44

Then, receiving power from both the risen Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit is a major theme at least in Matthew, Luke (24:49), and Acts (1:8a). The disciples were not to be abandoned or left on their own in preaching the gospel message. Here again, in their survey of the earliest church messages, Cullmann and Dodd agree. Cullmann discusses how the tripartite formulas began, stating that early believers in Jesus as Lord also believed in God the Father as well as the Holy Spirit.45 Speaking about the early church message, Dodd states it this way: “The Holy Spirit in the Church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory.” This theme also appears in the early kerygmatic preaching of the sermon summaries (Acts 2:16–21, 33; 5:32). So the work of the Holy Spirit is always close to the message of offering forgiveness of sins, salvation, and the eternal life of the age to come.46

The Gospels also allude to or hint at still other theological or ministerial topics that are connected to, or date from, the resurrection appearance of Jesus. These might include referring to the initial Easter Sunday both as the first day of the week (Luke 24:1) as well as the third day (24:46; cf. 24:21b). Another could perhaps be the subject of hospitality (24:28–29), which may have come from Jesus’s examples exemplified at the Last Supper (22:7–30; cf. 22:30 with the Q text in Luke 13:28–29) and the meal with the two believers in Emmaus (24:28–32; see Heb 13:2; 3 John 5–8, 10; and 1 John 1:7). Still another possibility would be the themes of worship, praise, and joy as connected to the resurrection (24:52–53; cf. Acts 5:41–42; 1 Pet 1:3–5, 8–9).

Luke 24:50–53: The Ascension

Rather than attempt a theology of the ascension, here we simply want to note several items briefly. In Luke and Acts, this account functions as the last appearance of Jesus. Critics often belittle the ascension story as an awkward conclusion somehow needed to end the story, or a flat-earth teaching where “up” was the way to heaven, as well as asserting that because Luke is the only writer who knew of the event, it must have been concocted by him.47

Another example is John Shelby Spong, who thinks that Luke emphasized the physical appearances of Jesus so much that when the end of the story arrives, it “became a necessity” to incorporate a physical ascension too. Spong quips that since Luke chose such “crudely physical” appearances, a physical ascension was the only means of getting “this very physical Jesus off his stage” to make room for the Holy Spirit directing the church.48 Regarding John’s references to ascension (like 20:17), Spong relates ascension to a range of similar concepts such as glorification and exaltation.49 He also makes the required point concerning ascension up to heaven not being very fitting in our space age.50

But the ascension is also defended in one way or another by numerous critical scholars too. Raymond Brown and Reginald Fuller both think that Luke made use of a pre-Synoptic tradition. For Fuller, Acts 1:9–11 “may well be based on a primitive kerygmatic formula, belonging to the Palestinian-Aramaic christological stratum.” Defensibly, Acts 1:9–11 was built on “a very primitive kerygmatic affirmation” that was “expanded into a narrative” and finally included in Luke’s “historical work.”51 Holding that some scholars are overly critical of the ascension, Joseph Fitzmyer asserts that it is the event where “Christ took his final leave from the community of his followers”52 as if to say, what’s so horrible about that?

Stephen Davis makes some strong retorts while responding to Lüdemann’s criticisms of the ascension as well. Though the ascension is narrated only in Luke–Acts, it is “referred to or implied frequently elsewhere in the New Testament.” Davis lists the following references: John 3:13; 6:62; 8:14, 21; 13:3, 33, 36; 14:4–5, 28; 16:5, 10, 17, 28; 20:17; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; 4:8–10; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 4:14; and 1 Pet 3:22! Moreover, if God raised Jesus from the dead, why “recoil” at the ascension? Davis concludes by stating, “I find nothing in Lüdemann’s arguments about the ascension of Jesus that casts doubt on the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.”53

In an exceptionally insightful essay on the ascension, biblical scholar Bruce Metzger also takes aim at many of what he considers to be shortsighted criticisms. Metzger initially points out that while it is true that the ascension is actually only described in Luke-Acts and the longer pseudo-Markan ending, it is also referred to explicitly in John 6:62 and 20:17. Though we do not get any details in other sources, even the use of the term shows prior knowledge of the teaching.54 Moreover, the language of ascension, including related Greek terms such as being taken up, exalted, being seated at God’s right hand, and so on, is found in a large collection of New Testament writings, including Luke, Acts, Romans, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.55

Sometimes the resurrection and exaltation of Christ are linked together, and in terms of dates, many of these references come from the early creedal traditions (like Rom 8:34; Eph 1:19–23; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 13:20), indicating how these themes even predate Luke by decades. Yet, resurrection and ascension are clearly distinguished in the literature—they are separate events.56

Additionally, Metzger also correctly emphasizes that the imagery of Jesus ascending has nothing to do with Ptolemaic physics, just as the phrase “ascending on high” (Eph 4:8) is not making the point that Jesus was, at that very moment, several hundred feet above sea level. Or in a related matter, what does it mean for Jesus to be seated at God’s right hand? Are we supposed to think that Jesus was now resting or seated on a heavenly throne precisely next to his Father? These expressions have to do, rather, with entering another sphere. Even with all of our greater scientific knowledge today, “there is no other symbolical action that can be imagined which could convey the desired impression.”57

Even from a brief look then, Jesus’s ascension is hardly something which is significantly problematic. There are far more foundational matters to solve first. Here are two considerations, for example: If Jesus was raised from the dead, why are we balking at an ascension (as Davis asked too)? Disprove the resurrection and then we can talk about how unlikely the ascension would be if Jesus had remained dead. But if the resurrection had occurred and Jesus had actually appeared, then an ascension offers no roadblock whatsoever—it is just another of the appearances, though distinct. As French scholar Jean-Marie Guillaume states, “L’Ascension de Jésus correspond, par certain côté, au type «conclusion d’une apparition».”58

Second, the early church did not have to invent an ascension simply to get Jesus “off his stage,” as Spong quipped. Jesus regularly appeared and disappeared, and nothing would be inappropriate had he told his followers that a particular appearance would be the last one, and then he never returned after that. His disciples certainly would have been saddened, but that would have been an apt close to his ministry as well. Thus, the ascension was unnecessary simply as a means of allowing Jesus to “get away.” Either way, he had to say goodbye!59

Conclusion

Luke 24 is certainly one of the richest and most picturesque series of accounts on Jesus’s resurrection appearances. From the women at the tomb, to the two disciples walking on the road to Emmaus and culminating in the intimate meal, to the appearance to the fearful Twelve, whatever we are to say textually and evidentially, these are some of the best known and most beautiful stories of these occurrences. Moving music, beautiful paintings, eloquent sermons, along with dramatic retellings and elaborations of the stories have been conducted ever since the events transpired. Our chief interest throughout has been the question of what actually happened, though we have drawn some conclusions from each Gospel regarding personal and corporate applications as well.

We will close this chapter by drawing two additional historical conclusions. First, to highlight a crucial distinction regarding the value of creedal traditions, an additional, seldom-made point is in order. The earliest of these creedal traditions can be traced closely to the apostolic milieu, and that is a huge evidential advantage in our overall discussions. Both Oscar Cullmann and C. H. Dodd, two of the greatest authorities on this subject, concede these results.

Cullmann notes how, in the early church, the crucial test for truth is that “essential doctrine” could have “objective worth only if it could claim the apostles themselves as its authors.”60 Nonetheless, Cullmann points out that the early traditions cannot be traced to particular apostles. However, most of these creeds take us back to the apostles’ time. When particular themes are repeated over and over in the oldest creeds, those elements are the essential components in the earliest evangelical message.61 Clearly, as both Cullmann and Dodd have reiterated, it is the Gospel essentials regarding Jesus that occupy the center position.

Dodd is more detailed and seems to go even a bit further. Paul probably received the creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7 directly from Peter and James in Jerusalem just a few years after the crucifixion, not to mention communicating with the apostles enough during their two weeks together to realize that they agreed in essential doctrine (1 Cor 15:11). This was a fortuitous meeting indeed:

Thus Paul’s preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source . . . but anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.62

Though the creeds or even the Acts sermon summaries were not verbatim accounts of Paul’s apostolic teaching, they “are based upon a reminiscence of what the apostle actually said.” With Peter as well, these creeds and speech summaries were not verbal reports, but they were the “kerygma of the Church at Jerusalem at an early period.”63

After providing an outline of the Gospel message of the lordship, death, and resurrection of Jesus and ending with an appeal for salvation, Dodd states, “This summary provides the framework within which the Jerusalem kerygma is set.” Then “Paul must have received the tradition very soon after the death of Jesus.” The result of this comparison is that we gain “a fairly clear and certain outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles.” When the material is compared, the teachings agree.64

So the overall sense of Cullmann’s and Dodd’s studies seems to be that the creedal traditions that permeate chiefly the New Testament Epistles and sermon snippets in Acts come from the time and location of the apostles in Jerusalem. By cross-checking the various texts, authors, and messages, an extraordinary amount of agreement may be ascertained between these statements. Dodd adds that if we extend this evaluation to the Gospels too, we would find that “in their central and dominant tradition they represent the testimony of those who stood nearest to the facts, and whose life and outlook have been moulded by them.”65

The upshot of all this here is that, though the Gospels receive far less attention than do Paul’s Epistles, plenty of early and authoritative material is found here as well. Though we are not writing a text on the historical Jesus, there is a wealth of material from which to pursue such a goal.

The second historical point to make here is a much briefer one. The majority of our primary method throughout this study has been to apply the minimal facts method to the subjects of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Such a method has the potential advantage of indicating that Jesus’s resurrection is by far the best explanation of the data that we possess, even if the New Testament texts were un-reliable! Nonetheless, since the study of the Gospels continues to establish various levels of assurance regarding the reliability of the Gospel resurrection accounts, combining these two research methods would yield an additional, independent approach to establishing the historical foundation for Jesus’s resurrection.

In short, the minimal facts method starts from the ground up and deals only with a relative handful of the lowest common denominator of highly probable historical facts. The reliability approach works from the top down and uses a larger number of facts that follow from the text as a whole being shown to be more trustworthy overall. Again, since the minimal and reliability approaches are independently argued by making use of different data, there is no logical reason why the two cannot “coexist,” thereby producing a “backup system” for establishing the resurrection. In doing so, this second approach strengthens the overall case for the resurrection of Jesus. The idea is that the event can be argued either way, both utilizing different sorts of historical evidence.

Notes

1 Although the two are described as young men in shining clothing, the two men walking with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, in describing the women’s account, report their having seen “angels” (Luke 24:22–23).

2 Joel Green and Michael McKeever, Luke-Acts and New Testament Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). The sources in the next few footnotes below were culled from different categories in this text, based on the helpful annotations.

3 When this is the conclusion, it is usually a reference to Acts: S. P. Schierling and M. J. Schierling, “The Influence of the Ancient Romances on Acts of the Apostles,” Classical Bulletin 54 (1978): 81–88; R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); S. M. Praeder, “Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel,” Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, ed. K. H. Richards (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 269–92.

4 H. J. Cadbury, “Commentary on the Preface of Luke,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles: Volume 2, Prolegomena II Criticism, ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake (London: Macmillan, 1922); V. K. Robbins, “Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts,” Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers, ed. P. J. Achtemeir (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 2:193–207; L. C. A. Alexander, “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing,” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 48–74; H. Riley, Preface to Luke (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1993); C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974); Talbert, What Is a Gospel? (see chap. 19, n. 9); R. I. Pervo, “Must Luke and Acts Belong to the Same Genre?,” Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D. J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); D. L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 5–19; P. L. Schuler, “The Genre(s) of the Gospels,” The Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. D. L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990); esp. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (see chap. 4, n. 71); G. L. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 374.

5 W. C. van Unnik, “Once More St. Luke’s Prologue,” Neotestamentica 7 (1973): 7–26; I. I. Du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke 1:1–4),” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974): 259–71; Robbins, “Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography,” 193–207; R. J. Dillon, “Previewing Luke’s Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1–4),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 205–27; T. Callen, “The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 576–81; Alexander, “Luke’s Preface”; R. R. Creech, “The Most Excellent Narrattee: The Significance of Theophilus in Luke-Acts,” in With Steadfast Purpose: Essays on Acts in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders Jr., ed. N. H. Keathley (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 1990), 107–27; F. Ơ. Fearghail, The Introduction to Luke-Acts: A Study of the Role of Luke 1,1–4,44 in the Composition of Luke’s Two-Volume Work (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), esp. 85–116; Sterling, “Historiography and Self-Definition,” 374; D. P. Moessner, “The Meaning of KAΘΕΞΗΣ in the Lukan Prologue as a Key to the Distinctive Contribution of Luke’s Narrative among the ‘Many,’” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992); Riley, Preface to Luke; Balch, “Genre of Luke-Acts,” 5–19; P. Stuhlmacher, “The Genre(s) of the Gospels: Response to P. L. Shuler,” in The Interrelations of the Gospels, ed. D. L. Dungan (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 484–94; D. W. Palmer, “Acts and the Historical Monograph,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 373–88.

6 Stuhlmacher, “Genre(s) of the Gospels,” 484–94.

7 Van Unnik, “Once More St. Luke’s Prologue,” 19.

8 Robbins, “Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography,” 193–207.

9 Burridge, What Are the Gospels?

10 Again, the amount of necessary discussion to get to the heart of each of these topics is what determines the chapter in which they are discussed. Incidentally, the Gospel of John will be included in these discrepancy discussions as well.

11 Elsewhere, John explains that on one occasion when God spoke from heaven to confirm Jesus’s words, some in the crowd concluded that it was simply thunder (John 12:28–30). Luke also tells the story of Peter getting out of jail by the intervention of an angel, and when the believers who were praying for him heard about the miracle, they disbelieved the rescue and told the messenger that she was crazy (Acts 12:1–16)!

12 Another sensitive “counseling” example is Jesus ministering to his friend Martha after her brother Lazarus had died (cf. John 11:21–27).

13 Guinness, God in the Dark (see chap. 20, n. 38); Paul K. Moser, Why Isn’t God More Obvious? Finding the God Who Hides and Seeks (Norcross, GA: RZIM, 2000); Bobby Conway, Doubting toward Faith: The Journey to Confident Christianity (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2015); Gary R. Habermas, The Thomas Factor: Using Your Doubts to Grow Closer to God (Nashville: B&H, 1999); Habermas, Dealing with Doubt (Chicago: Moody, 1990); Habermas, Why Is God Ignoring Me? What to Do When It Feels Like He’s Giving You the Silent Treatment (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2010). Note that the first two Habermas volumes here are freely available under the “books” tab on the website: www.garyhabermas.com.

14 Wright mentions the issue and remarks that with the vast majority of the manuscripts keeping 24:12, Luke would “more likely” know at least a shorter version of the story anyway, but that 24:24 confirms the account. See Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 613, 648, 663–64 (see chap. 6, n. 44). But an older, more pastoral text by celebrated Greek scholar A. T. Robertson seems to express a little more doubt than does Wright on Luke 24:12; see Robertson, “The Gospel according to Luke,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 2:291–92.

15 See Wenham, Easter Enigma, 87 (see chap. 20, n. 5).

16 A list of issues, “some admittedly trivial, some less so,” is provided by agnostic New Testament scholar A. J.  M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 24–37 (see chap. 1, n. 42). Wedderburn ends, fairly, by saying that the resurrection accounts “cannot just . . . be written off or discounted as pure fiction” (37). Rather, various aspects seem to be historical, so we need to bring historical tools and do the research (12–22). Prominent American New Testament scholar Raymond Brown is another who thinks that there are many divergences in the burial, empty tomb, and appearance accounts, but the historical core still can be deciphered and worked into a historical pattern. See Brown, John, 2:966–94 (see chap. 9, n. 148).

17 Intriguingly, Mark 16:12 states that Jesus appeared to these two companions “in another form” as they walked along. While not authoritative, this text seems to imply that Jesus apparently looked differently enough to be unrecognizable.

18 See Evans, Luke, 352 (see chap. 17, n. 100); Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 119 (see chap. 1, n. 44).

19 The seven disciples who were out in a boat fishing in John 21:4 do not really count in the same way, for though we are told that the disciples did not recognize him, Jesus was standing on the shore, some 100 yards away from them (21:8b).

20 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 119. Osborne treats the subject further in 219–26. The apostle Paul on the way to Damascus may come to mind here as well.

21 Strangely enough, just yesterday someone showed me two different videos of a good friend I was together with not terribly long ago. Both videos were fairly recent. In the first one, my friend looked quite “normal”—and I identified him immediately. But if you had shown me the second video by itself, I would never have recognized him. Even though it was a video where I could see entire sequences from different angles and views, even with close-ups, it was still to no avail! It happens!

22 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 324.

23 The classic treatment of this topic is Oscar Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20n1 (see chap. 2, n. 22).

24 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 222 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

25 Licona, 322.

26 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, Études Bibliques (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1979), 269. Other critical scholars who agree with various aspects here include: Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 31 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:901 (see chap. 1, n. 27); Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 63 (see chap. 10, n. 70); O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 123 (see excursus 1, n. 86); O’Collins, review of Risen from the Dead by Henry Wansbrough, in Heythrop Journal 20 (1979): 193; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66, 112 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125 (see excursus 1, n. 12); Craig, “On Doubts about the Resurrection,” 63 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Craig, “The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb (Lk 24,12.24, Jn 20,2–10),” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 618n6; Geffrey B. Kelly, “‘He Appeared to Me.’ 1 Cor. 15:8 as Paul’s Religious Experience of the End Time,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, ed. Thomas J. Ryan (Villanova, PA: Villanova University, 1979), 110.

27 Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 358n43 (see chap. 10, n. 146). In the same note, Kloppenborg mentions Wilckens, who thinks that Luke 24:34 may even predate 1 Cor 15:5a! It is also noteworthy that, because the current amount of attention being placed on these creedal statements, even Rudolf Bultmann recognized Luke 24:34 in this regard. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:45 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

28 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus (see chap. 4, n. 84). It should be noted that the Seminar’s “pink” coloring here regarding the appearance to Peter pertained specifically to his listed appearance in the creed in 1 Cor 15:5, rather than to the creed in Luke 24:34 (453–54). Yet, Luke 24:34 is also acknowledged in the context (450, 452). Incidentally and equally remarkably, the Seminar also judged that the creed in 1 Cor 15:3 and following was pre-Pauline, thus dating from before Paul’s conversion (454). The chief point here is that, in their skeptical judgment, Peter still experienced such a similar vision as Paul’s (454). The pink coloring is found on page 453 with the definition of this color on 36–37. As a further note, the resurrection appearance to Paul (that he tacked on to the creed) was actually colored red (454), which is defined this way: “The historical reliability of this information is virtually certain” (36). Further information regarding Paul’s vision is also provided on 458–459.

29 It signals an additional development rather than a shift, since the interest in creedal passages like 1 Cor 15:3–7 and Acts sermon summaries such as 10:39–43 are still preeminent and occupy the front seat of research.

30 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 103–18 (see chap. 20, n. 39), quotation on 103. Pheme Perkins is an example of a critical scholar who finds value in Dodd’s demarcation here. Perkins, Resurrection, 114 (see excursus 2, n. 111). Incredibly, not only does the Jesus Seminar employ the same term, concise, as Dodd (without citing him) for one of the types of resurrection appearances in the Gospels, they also remarkably include the same passages as Dodd in this category: Matt 28:8–10, 16–20; and John 20:19–23 (extending this text two verses). Though Luke 24:36–49 “probably” belongs in the concise category for Dodd, it is moved down one category to “intermediate” for the Jesus Seminar. Nonetheless, the similarities between Dodd and the Jesus Seminar at this point are striking. See Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 450.

31 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 118–27. As remarked above, and quite intriguingly given the lesser attention to creeds in the 1960s, Dodd in his final conclusions also thinks that the “earliest extant form” for reports of the resurrection appearances are still the early kerygmatic statements that provided evidence and grounding for the apostolic preaching (131).

32 Dodd, 124–26, 111–13 respectively.

33 Perhaps one would even want to make use of Dodd’s study above and differentiate the narrated appearances even further by distinguishing between the “concise” and the “circumstantial” accounts (or “Tales”), as well as the further differentiation between “Class I” and “Class II” examples of the concise narratives. The distinctions are found in Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” particularly 102–9. Dodd calls these the “two clearly distinguishable types of resurrection narrative” (109). The chief point is that the “concise” and the early creedal passages are closer to the original form of preaching or teaching, but that does not mean the other narratives were distorted or corrupted (103, 124–27, 131–33).

While Wright does not speak in exactly these terms, his four characteristics of the Gospel appearance accounts indicating that they are quite early might be summarized under the word concise. For example, Wright notes that in the Gospel resurrection accounts, there are as yet no allusions to the Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled and no promises of what is found quite often in the Epistles: that believers would be raised just like Jesus, both of which would expand the narration and would probably earn Dodd’s “circumstantial” moniker, due to the theologizing. See Wright’s remarkable text, Surprised by Hope, 53–58 (see chap. 18, n. 7).

34 Licona, “What Are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?,” 25 (see chap. 10, n. 155). Licona checked with several prominent New Testament specialists to confirm this view. New Testament scholar R. T. France agrees with this assessment of the majority position here. See France, Evidence for Jesus, 122 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

35 The connection between these subjects will be pursued in much more detail in the final volume of this set. Here we are simply setting the stage, as it were, for those later treatments.

36 Compare Matt 28:1–7, where when the angel rolled away the stone, Jesus seems already to have exited the premises. Note that there is no mention of the guards seeing the resurrected Jesus as in countless paintings, though that does occur in the Gos. Pet. 10:1–11:3.

37 Of course, in Paul’s case perhaps two or three years after the crucifixion, as Paul states, “as to one untimely born” (1 Cor 15:8 NRSV, ESV); Luke narrates in three different texts that Jesus appeared to Paul and his companions, featuring a dazzling light that was brighter than the noon sun, that blinded Paul for three days (Acts 9:3; 22:6, 9, 11; 26:13).

38 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 55–57, quotation on 57; cf. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 602–7.

39 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21 (see chap. 18, n. 1).

40 Wright, Surprised by Hope, 53–54; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 599–602.

41 See the candidates in Acts 1:21–22; 2:22–36; 3:13–16; 4:8–10; 5:29–32; 10:34–43; 13:28–31; and possibly 17:1–3, 30–31. For further details, see Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31 (see chap. 2, n. 22).

42 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49.

43 Cullmann, 57.

44 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21–22, 24 respectively.

45 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 52.

46 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 22–23. On the last point, cf. Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 45, 53, 62.

47 Two of the critics include Gerd Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 73–79 (see chap. 6, n. 173) and Küng, Eternal Life?, 120–23 (see excursus 2, n. 123).

48 Spong, Resurrection, Myth or Reality?, 82, 84 (see chap. 13, n. 26).

49 Spong, 92, cf. 88.

50 Spong, 104–5.

51 Brown, Risen Christ in Eastertime, 57 n. 68 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 120–23. Fuller’s first quotation is from 123, while the last three briefer ones are all from 129; cf. also 120–23, 127–30.

52 Fitzmyer, “Ascension of Christ and Pentecost,” 424–25 (see chap. 17, n. 169).

53 Stephen Davis, “The Question of Miracles, Ascension, and Anti-Semitism,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 77–80, with Davis’s three quotations being located on 77, 79, and 80 respectively. Other meaningful defenses of the ascension have been made by Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, 143–58 (see chap. 15, n. 109); O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 86–88 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Eugene LaVerdiere, “The Passion-Resurrection of Jesus according to St. Luke,” in The Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord: A Commentary on the Four Gospels, ed. Reginald H. Fuller, Eugene LaVerdiere, John C. Lodge, and Donald Senior (Mundelein, IL: Chicago Studies, 1985), 49–50; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 136–38, 266–70; William Lane Craig, “Second Rebuttal,” in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus’ Resurrection, 58; Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 274–75 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

54 Even Spong concedes, “The story of Jesus’ ascension was not told in John, but it was assumed.” See Spong, Resurrection, Myth or Reality?, 88.

55 See Bruce Metzger, “The Meaning of Christ’s Ascension,” in Search the Scriptures: New Testament Studies in Honor of Raymond T. Stamm, ed. J. M. Myers, O. Reimherr, and H. N. Bream (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 118–28. Several authors have also noted that while these terms are similar and even related in some regards, there are also differences from each other as well. Besides Metzger himself (above), this is also noted by Brown, who cites Benoit in “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1377 (see chap. 19, n. 29).

56 For these distinctions, see Metzger, “Meaning of Christ’s Ascension,” 118–23.

57 Metzger, 123–28.

58 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, 260 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

59 Interestingly, Spong charges that Paul knew nothing at all about Jesus’s ascension, taking instead an option that seems similar to the second option above regarding Jesus going to be with his Father in some sense, depending on the meaning of Spong’s words; see Resurrection, Myth or Reality?, 51. Spong would do well to interact in detail with Metzger’s treatment above as well, especially regarding the earliest creedal traditions in Paul’s writings and elsewhere, plus the Acts sermon summaries.

60 The text that accompanied the second-century Muratorian Canon contains additional information that witnesses to the importance of apostolic testimony. Speaking of the Gospel of John, the text explains that the apostle wrote his volume in the presence of other apostles such as Andrew, but John’s name was the one they agreed to place on the work. The document, originally published by B. F. Westcott, can be found in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 28–29.

61 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13–17, 49.

62 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, cf. 13–16, esp. 16.

63 Dodd, 18–19, 21, respectively.

64 Dodd, 24, 26, 31, respectively.

65 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12–17, 49–59; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 13–35. Dodd’s last comment is from 56 and is the conclusion of chapter 2 on the Gospels.

22

The Gospel of John

According to virtually all New Testament scholars, John is the last canonical Gospel to be written. It is usually dated in the last decade of the first century, or about 90–100 AD.1 Even the Jesus Seminar fits right into the same time frame with their date, also placing John in the last ten years of the first century.2

A Perspective Like That of Luke 1:1–4?

Though we are not dealing with the authorship of this Gospel in this book, an amazing aspect of recent studies of John’s Gospel is that even critical scholars often recognize there are a number of signs that indicate eyewitness or otherwise reliable data that shows up in various places in this volume.3 Further, it is not rare for the Gospel to be ascribed with some likelihood to tradition supplied by the apostle John himself, whether or not he was the author. However, the question here is not who wrote the book, but rather whether is it possible that the author of this Gospel indicates by his often excellent grasp of the data that much of his careful information demonstrates that his overall account is reliable? In other words, it is possible that John is showing throughout what Luke was asserting in the introduction to his Gospel. Thus, perhaps these authors have more than one way of indicating for the reader that these texts impart responsible reporting.

For example, Brown asserts that no other ancient tradition presents “any considerable body of evidence” for any author besides that of John, the son of Zebedee. Further, after setting out and analyzing the different stages in the Gospel and who could have been present during those times, plus the book’s claims that it reports eyewitness testimony, Brown concludes, at the least, that the apostle John exercised much influence in its composition and writing.4

Other examples are not difficult to locate. Johnson explains, “The claim to such firsthand traditions was once regarded as entirely fictitious, but the FG [Fourth Gospel] shows as good a knowledge of first-century Palestinian terrain, customs, and ideology, as the Synoptics.” After a number of examples, Johnson concludes, “Archaeology in fact has verified some specific facts that earlier critical scholars had dismissed as spurious (see 5:2; 19:13).”5

Like Johnson, Keener also notes some significant areas where eyewitness data seems to be the option that makes the best sense of specific information contained in the Gospel itself, such as the author’s knowledge of local geography, specifically his acquaintance with the Jerusalem area, along with the sense one gets that the author could well have been present at a number of key events such as the disciples’ last meal with Jesus.6 Considerations like these even caused Ehrman to state that some of the traditions in John’s Gospel may go back to an original apostle.7

Guthrie discusses a number of important indications of the author’s eyewitness testimony mentioned above. These include the knowledge of each of the following: Palestinian backgrounds; Jewish customs, including accurate information regarding Jewish disputes during the time just before the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans; Jewish history; Palestinian geography; and topographical details. More specific eyewitness information would include items such as the two Bethanys, the brook Kidron, Tiberius as an alternate name for the Sea of Galilee, the pool of Siloam, the paved region outside the Praetorium, as well as a number of other details. In sum, Guthrie concludes, “It seems impossible to deny that the author was either himself a native of Palestine or else in very close touch with someone who was.”8 He adds concerning the view that the apostle John was the author: “This view would, on the whole, seem to account for more facts than any other, even if it is not without its difficulties.”9

Without much doubt, the volume that has probably garnered the most attention along these lines during the last few years is Richard Bauckham’s detailed text Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, an exceptionally bold work from one of the most accomplished New Testament scholars of the present generation. Bauckham’s theme is that “fresh attention” needs to be given to the abundant number of relationships between eyewitness testimony and the four Gospels. Regarding the Fourth Gospel, Bauckham proclaims, “I conclude, very unfashionably, that an eyewitness wrote it.”10

More specifically, Bauckham devotes at least four full chapters to various aspects of this question (14–17), concluding that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Elder, who casts himself in the text as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” An enigmatic character mentioned in Christian writings beginning in the early second century, this John, according to Bauckham, was a resident of Jerusalem (which helps explain his firsthand familiarity with the city) who was also present for many of the most crucial aspects of Jesus’s ministry.11

So we return to the suggestion above that the author of John may have been doing or modeling just what Luke was asserting in reference to having made a careful check of the eyewitness sources. No Gospel provides more evidence than does John that the author, whoever he was, occupied a position that allowed him to know the truth regarding a great many of the geographical, archaeological, and historical items spoken about throughout the text, many of which can still be ascertained today.12 Therefore, the reader has a choice to make when the author (or editor, as per below) asserts regarding observing the details of Jesus’s crucifixion firsthand, “He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth” (19:35 NRSV).

Such a statement concerning the specifics of Jesus’s crucifixion could be ignored or questioned, as is so often done with comments in the New Testament. But is that the wisest option in this case, when the author has been correct on perhaps dozens of other occasions throughout the book? It would seem that the impetus would be on the side of the writer being correct once again, unless there are specific reasons to question the comment. We are not asking here about the truth of a particular saying of Jesus or an interpretation of a specific doctrine. Rather, the author who has already given reports that he has shown himself to be very adept at, namely, correctly reported physical places and events especially in the environs of Jerusalem, is now telling us what he asserts are particular details that took place precisely at Jesus’s crucifixion near Jerusalem and that he was a witness.

A last, related matter here is the meaning of John 21:24. Many contemporary scholars think that it is perhaps a group of witnesses who are affirming that the author of the book wrote factually and they knew that his testimony was true. But the comment seems to say much more than that, for it appears to proclaim that the disciple whom Jesus loved, the subject of the previous four verses (21:20–23), is the author of this book. Whether or not the convictions of these witnesses were true or false, many scholars today think that they are indeed affirming in 21:24 “that the Beloved Disciple composed the Gospel, whether or not he wielded the pen,” with or without assistance or editing.13

The discussion concerning whether the chief author of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness source or otherwise a credible reporter is absolutely crucial to making the best sense of the resurrection appearances. It is no coincidence that John 21:35 purports to relate events at Jesus’s crucifixion, and 21:24 comes at the close of the Gospel, immediately after identifying and affirming the truthfulness of the volume’s author and after two chapters of narrating Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

John 20:1: Mary Magdalene Goes to Jesus’s Burial Tomb

As with the other Gospels, we begin by viewing the initial report of Jesus’s empty tomb and the women who came to anoint Jesus’s dead body. It may be recalled that Mark and Luke had each named three women while Matthew named two. All three of the Synoptic Gospels include two identical women: Mary Magdalene and a second Mary, identified as the mother of James (and Joses in Mark 15:47). However, in John only Mary Magdalene is named specifically (20:1).

It also must be recalled that the three Synoptic Gospels also explain that other, unnamed women were also present at the crucifixion (Matt 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; Luke 23:49), at the burial (Luke 23:55), and at the tomb (Luke 24:10). In John, there are four women14—three Mary’s (Jesus’s mother, Mary; her unnamed sister; Mary the wife of Clopas; and Mary Magdalene)—plus “the disciple whom Jesus loved” present at the foot of the cross while Jesus was dying.

A variation from two or three women spread across three Synoptic Gospels is not a very wide deviation, especially when the three previous writers all acknowledge other women who are not being named. This simply indicates that exhaustively naming everyone present was not the goal of any of these three authors’ accounts.

But what is to be done with John naming only Mary Magdalene at the tomb? However, when she runs and tells the disciples that Jesus’s body is gone, Mary states that “we” do not know (ouk oidamen) where the body has been placed. Wenham thinks that, being younger, Mary Magdalene ran back to the disciples alone, leaving the two older women at the tomb.15 Keener thinks it unlikely that the disciples would have allowed one woman to travel to the tomb alone anyway.16

A popular option taken by a number of scholars is to conclude that the plural we is the key in 20:2, and that John thereby discloses his knowledge of there having been at least one other woman present at the tomb besides Mary Magdalene.17 Brown raises the issue too, mentioning Bultmann’s critical response that John’s plural we is simply a Semitic way of speaking. But Brown responds that, if that is the case, then why does Mary flip back inconsistently to the singular in 20:13?18 We might add that John 20:15 also uses the singular pronoun here as well.

Brown adds that citing the presence of only one person when others are also present serves as a means that John uses elsewhere to “individualize” and emphasize an aspect of a story.19 Franz Neirynck seems to agree here,20 as does Keener.21 Further making this a possibility is that, like with the Synoptics, John also posits that other women were present at the cross and so they might have joined Mary Magdalene on the way to the tomb too.

John 20:3–10: Peter and John Run to the Tomb

When Mary told the disciples what she observed including how the tomb was empty, Peter and at least one other disciple (presumably “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” frequently identified as John; see 21:20, 24) ran to the tomb to check on these matters. This is the counterpart to Luke 24:12, 24, where “some” of the disciples went to the tomb.

Some studies have indicated the presence of early traditions behind Peter and John(?) checking Mary Magdalene’s message of the empty tomb. After surveying some of the available studies in his chapter “Pierre au Tombeau Lc., 24,12,” French scholar Jean-Marie Guillaume concludes with praise for Luke regarding the pre-Synoptic tradition of the women visiting the tomb: “Luc semble ainsi refléter la tradition primitive plus ancienne certainement que la tradition présynoptique servant de fond à la péricope des femmes au tombeau.”22 (“Luke seems therefore to reflect the primitive tradition more certainly than the presynoptic tradition serving as background for the pericope of the women [going] to the tomb.”) Even so, Guillaume thinks that John’s account in 20:3–10, in all probability, “mieux préservé les grandes lignes originales” (“better preserves the original”) and is “plus ancien que le récit de Luc” (is “more ancient than the story of Luke”).23

Additional details are supplied by other scholars. Fuller thinks that of these two accounts, Luke’s is “a tradition which was known to Luke independently of John.”24 Perkins also agrees that there could well have been an earlier pre-Lukan source for Luke, but also mentions the idea by other scholars that John’s overall account may be earlier still.25 Staudinger makes the more general point that the entire scene, besides being reported independently, is what would be expected in that culture to double check the women.26 Neirynck treats the versions in much detail, including the assertion that many scholars think the accounts in Luke and John are not independent, along with his own view that the scene originated with Luke and then John adopted it.27 Guillaume adds many more details on relevant questions.28

As just seen, there is a fair amount of variety in the responses here. But contrary to Neirynck’s comment above regarding the well-recognized stance (about thirty years ago) that John may very well have been dependent on Luke’s account, hence militating against the accounts being independent, it should be obvious from the other comments above that this is far from an overwhelming or even a consensus position. Nonetheless, the issue of independence depends in large part on the outcome of this discussion.

John 20:11–18: Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene

Jesus’s appearance to Mary Magdalene in John 20 introduces a number of both theoretical as well as practical questions. Was she the first person to see the risen Jesus after his crucifixion? Why didn’t she recognize him immediately even after looking at him? Why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch him, but then later he allowed and even offered for others to do so? These are a few of the ones that will be addressed here briefly.

Earlier we discussed the question of whether Jesus’s first postresurrection appearance was to a small group of women (Matt 28:8–9) or to Mary Magdalene here. Traditionally, most comments appear to favor Mary, but that may in large part be due to the long pseudo-Markan ending (16:9), which states that Jesus appeared to her first (ephanē prōton). However, if that text is late and nonauthoritative, it is much more difficult to explain the popularity of this position, for that is the only canonical text where an appearance to Mary Magdalene alone occurs separately from a group. Making it more difficult, as noted often by commentators, is that no woman appears by name in the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:5–8, making Peter a candidate for the honor of the first appearance for some.

More intriguing for many is Mary’s lack of recognition of Jesus, even after she turned around and looked at him directly (John 20:14). In our chapter on Luke’s resurrection appearances, we commented on the multiple reasons for this failure to react to Jesus immediately with joy, much like the women appear to have done in Matt 28:9. There we mentioned that once or twice it was an issue of perception (Jesus being 100 yards away when the disciples were fishing in John 21), or the time on the Galilean mountain when he may have been a little too far away until he began walking toward them (as perhaps indicated by the Greek proselthōn in Matt 28:18a). At least once we are told that they were kept from recognizing him perhaps by a divine act (Luke 24:16). The pseudo-Markan ending states that Jesus appeared to the two disciples “in another form” (en hetera morphē) as they walked along (16:12), raising questions concerning what that might involve.

But as was suggested in the earlier treatment of this question, a relatively simple explanation is that Jesus just looked somewhat different than he did before the crucifixion. Perhaps the degree of difference might be similar to what a friend might look like after we have not seen her for a few years. It is what may cause us on occasion to do a “double take.” But Paul’s treatment (1 Cor 15:35–57; Phil 3:21) requires some change. Paul’s example involves the difference between seeds and the plants that they turn into later (1 Cor 15:37–38)—a simply huge amount of change! But huge change is not at all required; two stars do not differ from each other very much (1 Cor 15:41b), especially not from our perspectives.

Again, Scripture teaches that we will be ourselves in eternity, even having our own bodies restored. That was one of the main lessons that Jesus taught best by showing his disciples his scarred hands, feet, and side. But we absolutely cannot remain exactly the same or we would have to die again! Those are the sorts of bodily changes that could easily make even our best friend do a heavenly double take!

So we definitely do not know all of the potential reasons for the inability of some of Jesus’s followers to recognize him immediately. But to deepen the mystery, according to the Gospel reports not only did others recognize him right away (though perhaps shying back due to fear of having seen a ghost or something), but once they got their bearings seemingly had to restrain themselves from jumping directly into Jesus’s open arms! So the bottom line is that a bit of the mystery still remains, since we just do not always know each of the circumstances, even though we would like to be allowed in on the secret! To sum up this matter for now, Osborne makes an excellent point: “God permits blindness only until the time is ripe.”29

Mary occupied a halfway house between the two categories just mentioned above. Although she does not recognize Jesus initially, as soon as she gets her bearings she experiences a joyous reunion with her Lord. But why did he instruct her and a very few others not to touch him, at least according to the old King James translation? This is one of the questions that arises most frequently in studies of John 20, especially when Jesus shows himself and his wounds to his disciples just a short time later (20:19–23) with the seeming implication that they were free to reach out and touch him.

Most commentaries and translations have now straightened out this matter. As noted by the Greek specialist John A. T. Robertson, the phrase in question (mē mou haptou) means “‘cease clinging to me’ rather than ‘Do not touch me.’”30 For the most part, other New Testament commentators have followed suit after studying the wording of the Greek text. Keener gets his point across well by making the intriguing comment that the term “touch” (haptou) in this context “probably refers to ‘embrace’” since we can hardly imagine Mary Magdalene being satisfied to simply touch Jesus’s arm with her finger or to hold his hand!31 Brown too affirms that the phrase probably means that Mary already had a pretty good hold on Jesus, causing him to request that she desist.32

Osborne notes that this is a fairly widespread view among other critical scholars who often take this same approach as well.33 To Osborne’s list of scholars we might also add a few others such as Dale Allison, Pheme Perkins, C. F. Evans, and John Frederick Jansen.34 F. X. Durrwell remarks very descriptively that Mary Magdalene clung to Jesus, supported by the violence of her love.35 Even Willi Marxsen has Jesus allowing Mary’s touch here, but only through an exceptionally convoluted reworking of Jesus’s intended meaning in this text.36 Many other commentators could be added here too with similar comments.37

Also following the lead of the scholars on this subject are the more recent major translations of the New Testament. Most of the newer ones read, “Stop clinging [or stop holding] on to me.”38 As a general rule, it is chiefly the older translations that read “Don’t touch me” and hence fed the problem that was more commonly raised a few decades ago.39 So, with all this being said, the question appears to have lost its old force.

John 20:19–31: Jesus Appears Twice to His Disciples

By evening on the very first Easter Sunday, the Gospels report that several resurrection appearances had already occurred that day to Mary Magdalene, a small group of women as they left the tomb, the two disciples as they walked together to the town of Emmaus, and Peter. Now Jesus appears to the largest group yet—to the disciples. John does not tell us, but there may very well have been ten of the apostles (minus Judas and Thomas), plus others such as the women. After all, when the apostles and others gathered in Jerusalem after Jesus’s ascension, Luke tells us that 120 were there (Acts 1:15), though the group in John 20 had to be much smaller. They had no desire to draw any unwanted attention to themselves.

As with the disciples in the parallel account in Luke 24:36–49, the scenes both begin with the disciples’ fear. In John, the disciples “were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19 NIV). In Luke, when the disciples saw Jesus for the first time, they were described as being terrified and frightened, thinking that a ghost was standing there in front of them (Luke 24:37). Then Jesus asked them why they were afraid and doubting (24:38). In both cases, seeing Jesus’s wounds put the finishing touches and caused them to relax. When they realized that it was really Jesus, they rejoiced (Luke 24:39–41a; John 20:20).

In John, the apostle Thomas was not present in the first meeting with Jesus. He had proclaimed that he would not believe Jesus had risen from the dead unless he saw Jesus and checked out his wounds for himself. The next time Jesus appeared one week later, Thomas was present and got his opportunity. Witnessing Jesus and his wounds up close was the clincher for Thomas, who then acknowledged Jesus’s presence with an acclamation of worship (John 20:24–29).

Neither Luke nor John comment on whether the disciples touched Jesus when the offer presented itself.40 So we do not know from these two Gospel accounts alone if that occurred. However, apparently discussing the account from Luke 24:36–40, Ignatius (writing about AD 107–110) reports just a few years after John’s Gospel was composed that Peter and the other disciples did indeed touch Jesus’s body when they were given the opportunity. This experience served to transform their lives, after which they “despised death” (Smyrn. 3).

On C. H. Dodd’s very influential grid of “concise” narratives versus the “tales” or “circumstantial” accounts already discussed in an earlier chapter, the “concise” passages indicate those Gospel texts that are “drawn directly from the oral tradition” or that “represent most closely the corporate oral tradition of the primitive Church.” The significance here is that these “concise” narratives are deemed likeliest to be reliable reports. According to these widely used standards, John 20:19–21 makes the grade as a concise narrative, while John 20:26–29 is viewed as a sort of appendage to the earlier account, in that it depends on it for much of its meaning.41

Perhaps quite surprisingly, the Jesus Seminar also lists John 20:19–23 as a “concise” account, while referring to John 20:26–29 as an “intermediate” story, which is also a category used by Dodd. The Seminar employs this group of texts as those being ranked somewhere in between “concise” passages and “legends.”42 Brown also agrees with Dodd (given a few caveats) regarding the “concise” designation for John 20:19–23, though he concludes that John actually created the Thomas story.43 Still, the respect given to at least the first appearance to the disciples (and to a lesser degree the Thomas account, at least for Dodd and the Seminar) all the way across the wide range of views from Brown and Dodd to the members of the Jesus Seminar is rather amazing.

John 21: Jesus’s Appearance by the Sea of Galilee

Before any comments here, John 21 needs to be placed in perspective. John is the only canonical Gospel with two chapters devoted to the resurrection appearances of Jesus. As Bauckham notes, “A very large majority of modern scholars” think that the Gospel of John ended at the close of chapter 20.44 So John 21 is widely viewed as a Johannine appendix of some sort, perhaps added soon after the book was completed but before it was sent out, maybe even with the intention of circulating them together.

The regular journalistic questions abound: Who wrote the last chapter and for what purpose? How did it become part of the Gospel? Who is bearing witness to the author’s testimony in 21:24? Potential conclusions include the minority option that most of the appendix was either written by the book’s original author or the original author perhaps had just died or was close to dying (21:22–23) so a group who knew him well certified the author’s veracity in 20:24.45

But as Merrill Tenney asserts, “The epilogue . . . is unmistakably genuine.”46 This could of course mean several things. But there is no evidence from either the earliest copies or from any early scholars that the Gospel was ever circulated without chapter 21, nor does it appear that the material was added to an existing manuscript by another person. Bauckham argues that what makes the most sense from these and other data is “that the Gospel was originally designed to end just as it does in the version we have and never existed without the claim about its authorship that 21:24 makes.”47

We will leave right here the debate over the nature of John 21. This introduction simply sets the stage regarding the provenance and reliability of this material and its relevance to this Galilean appearance along with a few other items here.

John 21 is the story of Jesus’s appearance to his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (or the alternate name Sea of Tiberius, as the author calls it; 21:1; cf. 6:1). It is the third time that Jesus appears to a group of his disciples (21:14). Seven disciples were in a boat, fishing, but failed to recognize Jesus standing onshore 100 yards away (21:4, 8). Since they had not caught any fish, Jesus calls out and tells them to cast their net on the opposite side of the boat, and doing so they pull in 153 fish. After pulling the fish to shore, they find that Jesus has already cooked a little lunch of bread and fish (21:9).

After their meal, Jesus initiates a discussion with Peter, asking him three times if he loves Jesus. Peter answers positively each time, getting a little annoyed and hurt that Jesus keeps asking him the same question. After each answer, Jesus tells Peter to feed either his lambs or his sheep. As Brown and others have pointed out, it is widely thought that this discussion served as a sort of reconciliation between Jesus and Peter, with Jesus inviting Peter back into the apostolic fold and re-bestowing his apostolic authority after his three denials of Jesus.48

This questioning is followed by Jesus’s prediction that when Peter grows older, he will die as a martyr (21:18–19). Keener notes that many scholars hold not just that this is indeed a prediction of Peter’s martyrdom (cf. 2 Pet 1:14, especially the latter portion about Jesus having previously made this clear to Peter), but that the reference to “stretching out your hands” probably signifies Peter’s own crucifixion.49 As mentioned earlier, there is also scholarly speculation here that either the imminent expectation or the actual death of the disciple whom Jesus loved may well be in view here as well (21:22–23).50

We have already discussed the significance of John 21:24 above and saw that there were several possible interpretations. But the idea of being a witness or testifying to the truth of the author’s comments in this book is a rare comment among the canonical Gospels and is reminiscent of John 19:35, where the ideas of testimony, eyewitness, and truth also all come together. Outside of John, as discussed above, it is also reminiscent of Luke 1:1–4. We also saw in that discussion the significant possibility, according to a number of scholars, that John 21:24, especially following 21:20–23 as it does, is a statement that the disciple just mentioned (21:20), the one whom Jesus loved, is the author of this book. If we is meant as a reference to more than one person “signing” the statement here, then the authors are testifying of the truth of the Gospel reports.

John 20:28: From the Resurrection to the Deity of Jesus

Thomas declared that he would not believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead unless he personally saw him. He was probably quite surprised when Jesus obliged him and appeared in front of him! Although we do not know what initial conversation may have gone on between them, if any, it appears that Thomas knew quite quickly that nothing else was to be done other than to respond in faith and worship, which he did (John 20:24–28). Jesus seems to indicate that Thomas’s faith was initiated at that point (20:29).

Thomas responded to Jesus with the words “My Lord and my God!” Many commentators are agreed that, given syntax and other factors, this text may actually be the clearest of the occasions in the New Testament where Jesus is given the title of “God.”51 Raymond Brown states straightforwardly of John 20:28, “This is the clearest example in the NT of the use of ‘God’ for Jesus.”52 Further, in his proclaimed New Testament Christology, Oscar Cullmann declares more than once that the title “Lord” (Kyrios) could even be a loftier term than “God,” with one of the reasons being that Kyrios is used in the Septuagint to translate both Adonai and the holy name YHWH.53 Thus, especially by using both of the terms “Lord” and “God,” the argument in Thomas’s mind had moved from Jesus’s now-obvious resurrection to the two most important titles that could be used for Jesus.

In the New Testament as well as down through church history, the twofold evidential punch that accompanied the preaching of the Gospel was the use of miracle and prophecy. These could serve either as individual arguments or they could be used in tandem, weaving the arguments together. Whether in the book of Acts or winding down through the centuries since that time,54 as stated by philosopher Bernard Ramm, “an unbroken belief stretches from earliest Hebrew times to the present century that supernatural knowledge in the form of a fulfilled prophetic utterance, and supernatural power in the form of a miracle are indicia of a divinely given revelation. . . . Few convictions in Christendom have such a sustained historical continuity.”55

It should be noted, however, that the fulfilled prophecy argument has almost dropped completely off the stage in scholarly discussions in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries,56 at least in other than popular circles where it is still employed. On the other hand, the miracle and resurrection argument has actually gotten much stronger in the last two or three decades, dividing into at least three independent arguments today.57

F. F. Bruce takes Ramm’s observation one step further. He indicates that the twofold argument from prophecy and miracle “coincided and culminated in the resurrection of Jesus.” This event served as “the greatest demonstration of the power of God.” It was even stronger in the early church when the living eyewitness could attest to having seen Jesus personally, which is Paul’s apparent point in the words of 1 Cor 15:6b.58 Though it did not begin this way, this was certainly the case for Thomas, who began with serious doubts but then actually became one of these resurrection witnesses himself.

John 20:20–23, 29–31; 21:18–19, 24: From the Resurrection to Theology and Practice

These present volumes are chiefly concerned with the philosophical and historical issues relevant to whether or not, and in what sense, the resurrection of Jesus really occurred. While of course not approaching these areas with anything close to modern precision, the New Testament authors were also quite interested in apologetic aspects of the resurrection. When defending the faith, the resurrection was used far more than any other approach.

Beyond apologetics, the New Testament also links the resurrection with many other topics. Besides arguing for the veracity of the Christian faith, the other huge focus is the significance of the resurrection as the event that grounds and anchors the proclamation of the Gospel message, consisting at a minimum of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.59 Dodd summarizes nicely from the Acts sermon summaries both the central Petrine kerygma as well as the essential Pauline kerygma. Then Dodd reports that this combined message “provides the framework within which the Jerusalem kerygma is set.” As for Paul, he “must have received the tradition very soon after the death of Jesus.”60 Further, the sermon summaries from Peter and Paul are very close in their essence.61 Whatever their own views, many other scholars agree on the outline of the central apostolic Gospel message.62

In each of the canonical Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus is not merely an end in itself. It is more than just a wonderful, miraculous event that leaves us in awe. In the remainder of the New Testament, many themes follow from the truth of this event. In many texts, Jesus’s resurrection guarantees the truth of theology, such as indicating the truth of Jesus’s deity,63 as well as the truth of the believer’s resurrection.64 Further, it should spur Christians onward to proper ethical conduct such as caring for those in need (1 Cor 15:58–16:2; Acts 4:32–34). And the resurrection even challenges believers to lead holy and totally committed daily lives in step with the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:8–14; 8:5–13).

For example, it is because Jesus rose from the dead that Christian theology and worldview beliefs are shown to be true while, conversely, those of other competing religious worldview systems were false. It is amazing how tightly this connection is made in the New Testament and how easily it is sometimes followed. For instance, the apostle Thomas makes the move almost instantly. He doubted Jesus’s resurrection, but as soon as the risen Jesus appeared to him, he responded, “My Lord and my God!” (Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou; John 20:28).65 He doubted until he saw Jesus raised from the dead, then the loftiest of theological truths directly followed. After all, perhaps Thomas wondered why else would God raise Jesus from the dead if he were only a false prophet? That would be rather counterproductive!

Other theological connections also emerge in the four Gospels from the words of the risen Jesus, whether it be the association between Jesus and the coming work of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22; Luke 24:48; Acts 1:4–5), the possibility of forgiveness for sins (John 20:23; Luke 24:47), or the duty of the disciples to be chief witnesses to the truth and assume the roles of leadership in the church. As in John 21:24 (cf. 19:35), the apostles themselves were now uniquely positioned to testify to the truth of the resurrection in whatever situations arose as their Lord’s designated witnesses (John 20:21; Luke 24:48). They were personally to become the evidence as living witnesses to the appearances. But more than that, with Jesus’s absence arriving in just a few days hence, the disciples would assume the major roles in the young church.

In terms of the risen Jesus applying resurrection truth to pastoral areas of Christian practice, by far the most prominent single topic in the Gospels is Jesus sending his disciples into the world to evangelize, baptize, make disciples, and teach. If the long ending in Mark is counted, this theme is found in all four Gospels plus Acts (Matt 28:19–20; Luke 24:47–48; John 20:21, cf. 20:31; Acts 1:8; pseudo-Mark 16:15–16, 20). Of course, Acts tells the story of approximately the first three decades of church growth.66

Another pastoral application emerging from the teaching of the risen Jesus is that of dealing with religious doubt. Once again, this theme is also found in all four Gospels (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:11, 37–42; John 20:26–29; pseudo-Mark 16:11, 13, 14). Sometimes the pericopes dealing with this theme are extended as well—such as Jesus’s meeting with his disciples in Luke 24:37–42 and a second meeting with so-called doubting Thomas in John 20:26–29. The frequency with which this theme reoccurs is of course due largely to the extraordinary event of a rising from the dead. But it also indicates that even among believers doubt is quite pervasive.

An intriguing contrast occurs in the Gospels when Jesus is challenged by those who are apparently also experiencing doubts of their own. On a couple of occasions, the Pharisees approach Jesus and ask for a sign. Jesus responds rather harshly, retorting that only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks out a sign (Matt 12:38–42; 16:1–4). Nonetheless, even for them, Jesus would provide the sign of Jonah—his own resurrection (Matt 12:40; 16:4).

When John the Baptist is put in jail by Herod, he sends his own disciples to ask Jesus if he is indeed the Messiah or if they should look for someone else (Luke 7:18–20)? However, Jesus never answers firmly that only adulterous generations sought a sign. Rather, on the spot, Jesus heals a number of ailing people including the blind. Then he patiently instructs the men to go tell John what they had just seen. Granted, Jesus’s way of answering questions was not always the normal approach, but it was an affirmative response just the same—yes, of course he was the Messiah!

Then as we saw in this chapter, Thomas refused to believe his colleagues and asserted that he would not believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead until he saw him for himself and touched his wounds. Thomas receives his wish when Jesus appears to him, to which Thomas responds by worshipping him and calling him God (20:26–29).

One might well wonder about the difference between these three cases. It seems that in the circumstance with the Pharisees, they would scarcely have believed even if they had seen the risen Jesus. The sign would occur and they would be without excuse. Perhaps they were among those whom Jesus was describing when he taught that some Jews would not believe even if someone had been raised from the dead (Luke 16:31). Their hearts were hardened—like hard soil where the seed did not stand a chance.

In contrast, John the Baptist was a righteous man whose heart was in the right place (Luke 7:28). Jesus perhaps also knew that John was probably experiencing a very rough time in Herod’s prison away from his ministry, and that he would even die there shortly. John just needed a little help and Jesus understood that.

Perhaps Thomas was a little more brash and slightly more hardened than John, so when Jesus appeared to him, he did give him a mild rebuke, almost a “Don’t do this again” sort of thing (John 20:29)! But in two out of three cases, Jesus grants the doubter’s requests. The passages involving the Pharisees were the only exception.

It seems that there are some lessons here for us. As the saying goes, there are different strokes for different folks. Jesus apparently answered roughly the same question quite differently because the questioners’ hearts were in different places. Still, believers in the New Testament are told to minister to doubters (Jas 5:19–20; Jude 22a).

But more practical lessons also follow from the words and example of the risen Jesus. The connection between the resurrection and enduring persecution would have been apparent even if Jesus and the disciples had chosen not to utter a single word at the outset of their first meeting. The disciples could simply observe the scars on the wrists, feet, and side of their risen Lord. This was certainly a reminder that provided more than ample indication that similar future possibilities could well await them. Further, Jesus’s prediction of Peter’s martyrdom (John 21:18–19) may have served as a shocking wake-up call too, assuring them that they could well be in danger themselves.

Yet, in spite of these visual observations as well as the “dark” reminders from Jesus, as far as we know there is no early historical record that any of Jesus’s disciples either stopped following their Lord or ever recanted their faith.67 Their own firsthand persecution placed the disciples in the position to have earned the right to counsel and comfort other believers who were struggling in this area as well.68

These themes of persecution, suffering, and dying for the faith were also picked up in the early church (2 Pet 1:13–14; Heb 11:35–38), with Jesus’s resurrection guaranteeing the reality of the eternal prize set before those who were being persecuted (2 Cor 4:7–18; 1 Pet 1:3–7). Little did the disciples realize as the risen Jesus instructed them that that the torment and even death would begin almost immediately around the corner (Acts 5:40–41; 7:54–60; 12:1–2).

Yet another related practical theme addressed by the resurrected Jesus is that of grief and the imparting of comfort to hurting people that accompanies it. Even before the crucifixion, the disciples were present when Jesus delayed for two days after getting the word that his good friend Lazarus was very sick. Then the group journeyed to Bethany, though Lazarus had already died (John 11:1–16).

Readers are privileged to “watch” the picturesque scene woven by John as Jesus comforts Martha, Lazarus’s sister, with the beautiful words that are often read today at funerals and graveside services. Jesus explains to Martha: “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live” (11:25 NRSV). Amazingly, before his resurrection, Jesus points to that event as providing the ultimate comfort for grieving believers. In spite of the undeniability of present pain caused by death, what long-term message could possibly provide a greater blessing than Jesus’s assurance of future reunion forever?

Paul revisits this theme when he reminds his readers that believers naturally mourn when their loved ones die. Why not—Jesus did so (John 11:35–38). But then Paul points out that due to the resurrection of Jesus, there is a world of difference between grieving without hope and grieving with the hope of eternal reunion (1 Thess 4:13–14). These words should bring comfort in the toughest of times (4:18).

As Andrew Lincoln points out so well in addressing the situation in John 11, Martha and Mary needed to realize that the truths that Jesus taught were more than just good theology—the reality behind these doctrines is “now presently available in and through Jesus.” John’s readers may also benefit from this message. What Martha missed was “a true grasp of the believer’s connection with Jesus. That connection changes everything.”69

Yet we dare not miss the forest for the trees here. Jesus implied his forthcoming resurrection with Mary and Martha during their grief. Then, after the resurrection was history, Jesus also dealt with his own disciples, mainly by allowing or offering himself to be touched. With both Lazarus’s sisters as well as the disciples, Jesus’s own resurrection and the truth of the afterlife was the foundation of Jesus’s message. Jesus confronted grief with the use of truth. The grief of both Lazarus’s sisters as well as that of the disciples tended to be corrected and then dissipated after Lazarus and later Jesus rose from the dead!

The last area of practical application to be mentioned in this chapter is the frequent connection of joy, thanksgiving, comfort, and peace with the resurrection message. A short time after Lazarus was raised from the dead (even if only to die again), Martha and Mary arranged a wonderful dinner to honor Jesus (John 12:1–3). Obviously, Lazarus had been restored to them and things were going much better by then.

In the other cases after Jesus’s resurrection, the joy was associated with the presence of Jesus himself. Initially, the disciples needed to overcome their initial surprise and fear at seeing Jesus alive again and worried that he might be a ghost. But once realizing that Jesus was indeed standing in front of them, their joy knew no bounds (as in Matt 28:8–9, 17; Luke 24:41, 52; John 20:16, 20–21).

Later in the New Testament, there are several places where the topic of Jesus’s resurrection is connected in the vicinity of joy, thankfulness, or praise. Shortly after reporting more than once that the disciples’ central message in the early days of the church was that of Jesus’s resurrection (Acts 1:22b; 4:2, 33), Luke tells us that the disciples were flogged for their message by the Jewish leaders. Their immediate response was to rejoice that they were counted worthy to suffer for Jesus (Acts 5:41).

In the “resurrection chapter” in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul winds his way through more than fifty wonderful verses, making observations on different aspects of Jesus’s resurrection, only to get to the end and seemingly shout out triumphantly the words of Hos 13:14 and declare that death has lost its sting and is no longer victorious (1 Cor 15:54–57)! It is difficult to imagine a “higher note” of rejoicing than this message.

In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul discusses some of the tough times that he had experienced, including our earlier topic of persecution (4:7–12), with his response being that the God who raised the Lord Jesus will raise believers from the dead as well. In the process, Paul makes the beautiful point that he and all believers will be raised together and arrive in the presence of Jesus. For this reason, Paul concludes, thanksgiving will overflow (4:14–15). Then he ends these thoughts with one of the most beautiful crescendos in all of Scripture (4:16–18).

Lastly, Peter begins a brief discussion of suffering and persecution by asserting the especially poignant thoughts that praise should be directed to God, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Further, Jesus’s resurrection bestowed on believers a heavenly inheritance that will never perish, spoil, or fade, secured in heaven for us. He notes that we rejoice in this truth, even amid trials. Then Peter’s own crescendo rises as he repeats that believers may “rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy” since we are receiving our salvation (1 Pet 1:3–9 NRSV).

In the more than 300 verses in the New Testament on the grandest subject of all—the resurrection of Jesus—this theme is related to far more topics than matters of defending the faith and the gospel of salvation alone. Granted, apologetics and salvation are also central biblical concerns, and these are the two areas that are most popularly tied to the resurrection. However, these 300 biblical passages are also connected to most of the other major theological doctrines, as well as being related to many areas of Christian practice too. Thus the resurrection is truly a many-faceted diamond which, when turned one way, relates perfectly to a particular theme, only to be turned in another direction to discover an entirely new angle waiting at our fingertips for study and exploration.

Growth in Canonical Accounts of the Empty Tomb and Jesus’s Appearances?

The Jesus mythicists in particular, along with a few other critical scholars, sometimes introduce the question of the potential legendary growth from the early to later canonical Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances, moving from Mark to John, i.e., from earlier to later accounts. Examples may include the number of women who went to the tomb, the presence of angels, or the number of appearances themselves. Is the sort of progress or growth indicative of what might be termed as some sort of “creeping legend”?

To be sure, the way the different commentators approach their subject is often a lesson in contrast. In general, the mythicist popularists are far more often quite outspoken, even bombastic, and appear to be entirely sure of themselves, as if they think they are sounding an alarm for all to hear their fuming. On the other hand, the critical scholars are easily more measured, careful, and nuanced.70 Of course, the scholars are still capable of registering their thoughts.71

Some of the examples of what is sometimes termed “legend” in the Gospel accounts is that in Mark, three women visit the tomb, while only two women are mentioned in Matthew, with three women again making the walk in Luke, and only one woman in John, although the plural pronoun we is also included in John 20:2. In Mark, there is a “young man” dressed in white inside the empty tomb,72 while Matthew has a single angel stationed there. For Luke, two young men dressed in “dazzling clothes” (NRSV) are at the tomb, and for John, two angels are also present at the tomb.73

Lastly, no appearances of the risen Jesus are narrated in Mark, though he is certainly aware of them, given the many predictions by Jesus himself of the appearances in this Gospel, plus the angel’s proclamation at the tomb, namely, that the disciples would see the risen Jesus in Galilee (Mark 16:7).74 Matthew presents two resurrection appearances, one to the women who respond by holding Jesus by the feet (28:9–10) and a second visit to the disciples on a Galilean mountain (28:16–20). Luke narrates an appearance of Jesus to two travelers on their way to the village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35), a stark report of Peter seeing the risen Jesus (24:34), another appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem (24:36–49), and possibly a separate fourth occasion on the day of the ascension (24:50–52). John records an appearance to Mary Magdalene who also holds onto Jesus (20:14–18), a second appearance to the disciples minus Thomas in Jerusalem (20:19–23), then another to the disciples a week later including Thomas (20:24–29), and a fourth and final appearance to a smaller group of disciples in Galilee while they are fishing (21:1–23).

This tally of Jesus’s narrated appearances in each of the four canonical Gospels yields none in Mark, two in Matthew, three or four in Luke,75 and four appearances in the Gospel of John. As can be seen, Jesus’s appearances present a greater number and diversity of details than either the number of women or the angelic count.

Do these data regarding the empty tomb and Jesus’s resurrection appearances seem to indicate an increasingly complicated set of descriptions and details? A few additional thoughts must be added here for the sake of perspective. Regarding the women, as notes John Dominic Crossan, the numbers actually decrease from Mark on to John—from three women to two, back to three, then to one, plus John’s use of the pronoun we in 20:2. There does not seem to be much variation in numbers or details here.76

How about the angelic count in or around the tomb? Moving from the likely earliest Gospel to the latest one, the angels only vary in number by one, with either one or two angels being present in each case. There is very little variation here.77 After all, according to the old saying, if there were two people or angels present, then one was also present. But there is an additional consideration here as well. There are actually two visits to the tomb in Luke (the women plus some men later) and three visits in John, where Mary Magdalene apparently returns by herself after the men visit the site. But in both of the latest two Gospels combined, the angels are only mentioned in two of these five trips. This seems like a clear indication that, whatever else may have been happening here, multiplying the miraculous element was neither a tendency nor a goal. Otherwise, there were sufficient enough opportunities to present some wild scenarios such as depicted in the second-century Gospel of Peter.

One additional, relevant factor may be mentioned in this context. Of the four canonical Gospels, John—the last one to be written—actually narrates by far the fewest number of miracles. In fact, Mark, Matthew, and Luke each individually include two to three times more miracles than does John!78 This is yet another angle that appears to place a pause on discussions at least of wholesale Gospel legend hypotheses.

But do Jesus’s resurrection appearances present a different picture, expanding as they do from zero narrated reports in Mark to three or four each in Luke and John? It does seem as if the count may have grown here in the intervening decade or two. But what changes the overall picture significantly is that, according to all critical commentators, the very earliest report that actually precedes any of the Gospels is the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7, where five appearances are listed—two to individuals and three more to groups, including one to at least 500 persons at once. Not only is this the largest number of appearances in a single text—but it appears in the earliest source of all. Further, the 500 persons present during this one sighting of the risen Jesus also makes it the most fantastic example. This actually reverses the process!

These five appearances in the early creed were not narrated, but that makes very little difference. After all, the Gospels consist of narrated accounts from the outset, since that is the very nature of biographies. But as Fuller notes, all of the earliest appearance reports were listed rather than being narrated, with the narrated versions being a later species of development due to their genre. Examples of the listed appearances include 1 Cor 15:3–7; Luke 24:34; and Mark 16:7 along with the “kerygmatic speeches of Acts” such as 2:32; 3:15; 10:40; and 13:30–31.79 First Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8 should be added here as well. These concise creedal texts actually predate the Gospel-narrated appearances. Thus, beginning with the earliest appearance notations, up to four appearances in each of the Gospels are not at all out of place.

A last point to make here is in many ways the most crucial. This entire resurrection study has been chiefly about the application of the minimal facts method—utilizing the lowest common denominator of historical facts to indicate that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. When this approach is applied to this question of legendary creeping, the answer is the same as for objections pertaining to Gospel discrepancies. The strength of the approach employed here is that using only those facts that are easily the best evidenced and which critical scholars therefore affirm, we have enough data to show that Jesus’s resurrection and subsequent appearances were the best explanations of what is known. So even though there appears to be no grounds here for pointing out legendary problems in the Gospel resurrection accounts, such arguments would still not disrupt the best resurrection argument.

Conclusion

The Gospels of Luke and John present some of the most graphic examples of resurrection appearance narratives. The two disciples on the way to Emmaus or Mary Magdalene weeping at the tomb only to turn and recognize the risen Jesus standing there are two scenes that come immediately to mind. Both have been the objects of many paintings and other works of art over the years.

Beyond the picturesque, we also saw that both Luke and John present some serious data in support of the resurrected Jesus. Whether it is the Lukan preamble in 1:1–4 or the Johannine emphasis on the crucial importance of being an eyewitness (as in John 19:35 and 21:24), both authors have a declared interest in the idea of presenting accurate information for their readers. Moreover, both authors appear to include early traditions lying behind their reports of the disciples’ trip to Jesus’s tomb to check out the women’s claims (Luke 24:12, 24; John 20:3–10). Luke preserves an important early creedal text that attests Jesus’s appearance to Peter (24:34). Both authors include what C. H. Dodd designates as “concise” appearance texts in Luke 24:36–49 and John 20:19–21, which reveal indications of being original historical observations.80 Taken altogether, these examples include some noteworthy indications of historicity.

There are multiple reasons for the recent reestablishment of interest in the historicity of the Gospels. This is due in part to the prevailing view over the last couple of decades that the Gospels actually fall into the genre of Greco-Roman bioi. Perhaps this trend also has to do with numerous studies on the early creedal traditions and other sources that may underlie the Gospels. Maybe these trends are augmented by a few very critical scholars who have supported moving the composition dates of the Synoptic Gospels closer to the time of Jesus. Or, it could have something to do with restoring a little faith in signs of eyewitness observations in the Gospels. Whatever the reason(s) for the current interest and signs of change regarding the evaluation of Gospel historicity, some of the things that we have pointed out regarding the reliability of the resurrection appearance traditions are part of that transformation.

Notes

1 Bart Ehrman dates John at about AD 90–95, and Luke Timothy Johnson agrees to the same span, while German New Testament scholar Gerd Theissen prefers a date as late as 100–120! In his benchmark two-volume commentary on John, Raymond Brown opts for 90–100. Keener likewise thinks that the mid-nineties is correct. Guthrie adds that the majority of scholars fit into the 90–110 range, providing some reasons for the options. Ehrman, New Testament, 43 (see chap. 4, n. 34); Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 470 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 148, cf. 8 (see chap. 10, n. 20); Brown, John, 1:lxxxvi (see chap. 9, n. 148); Keener, Gospel of John, 1:140 (see chap. 9, n. 111); Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 297–303 (see chap. 10, n. 134).

2 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 18 (see chap. 2, n. 19); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 2, 8 (see chap. 4, n. 84), which is an interesting contrast with Theissen’s date above.

3 In personal correspondence, New Testament specialist Craig Keener confirmed (January 24, 2017) his conviction that “the majority of Johannine scholars globally do acknowledge eyewitness material going back to whoever the ‘beloved disciple’ is.”

4 Brown, John, 1:xcii, xcviii–cii; the quotation is on xcii.

5 Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 469.

6 Keener, Gospel of John, 1:89–91.

7 Ehrman, New Testament, 161.

8 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 261–64, quotation on 263. Cf. also James H. Charlesworth, “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Background,” Studies in Philosophy and Theology 38 (2013): 46–51.

9 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 275.

10 The volume is subtitled The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 6. For more angles on the book’s theme, see 240, 260, 304–5. This volume was revised and substantially updated in 2017.

11 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly 396–400. Of course, championing the authorship of such an obscure, minor disciple as John the Elder, Bauckham’s choice leaves him to address questions regarding explicit evidence for such a conclusion. However, Guthrie presents a survey of a number of scholars who also agree in casting their support with John the Elder being the author of the Fourth Gospel; see New Testament Introduction, 278–81. As Brown notes decades before the appearance of Bauckham’s volume, there is really no specific evidence in the early sources for anyone but the apostle John; see Brown, John, 1:xcii. Further, if someone were going to go to all this trouble discovering various arguments in favor of eyewitness testimony behind the Fourth Gospel, only to pick someone that we know next to nothing about, and without specific evidence for his authorship, why not just choose the apostle John, especially when his lack of mention by name in the Gospel seems to single him out, not to mention the exceptionally strong testimony in the early church; on the last point, see Keener, Gospel of John, 1:91–98; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 275.

12 It is worth noting that the Gospel of John has undergone significant reassessment pertaining to its historical value. See especially the following three volumes edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher: John, Jesus, and History, vol. 1, Critical Appraisals of Critical Views (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); John, Jesus, and History, vol. 2, Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015); and John, Jesus, and History, vol. 3, Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016).

13 The quotation is from Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 362. Other scholars who agree or who think that this may have been the case include Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 146–47, 153 (see chap. 10, n. 23); Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 158; Ehrman, New Testament, 160–61 (with some caveats); Brown, John, 2:1127, but compare Brown’s more recent statement in An Introduction to the Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 195–96; Keener, Gospel of John, 1:82–115; Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 22–41.

14 Keener makes the point that the second Mary, identified as the wife of Clopas, also could have been Jesus’s aunt, reducing the number of women present there to three, each of whom was named Mary. While this is a less likely option, Keener notes that it was not unheard of that, at least in Roman homes, two sisters were sometimes given the same name; see Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1141–1142.

15 Wenham, Easter Enigma, 83 (see chap. 20, n. 5). Murray Harris makes a very similar point; see Raised Immortal, 69–70 (see chap. 8, n. 17).

16 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1178.

17 See the suggestions by Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 199 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1178; Wenham, Easter Enigma, 87; A. T. Robertson, “The Fourth Gospel,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1932), 5:309. Reginald Fuller is undecided about whether the use of the plural indicates more than one woman being present at the tomb according to John; see Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 134 (see chap. 10, n. 23); A. J. M. Wedderburn also seems to think that the question might turn either way; see Beyond Resurrection, 254n49.

18 Brown, John, 2:984.

19 Brown, 2:999.

20 Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” 167 (see chap. 15, n. 74).

21 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1183.

22 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, 65 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

23 Guillaume, 201.

24 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 102–3.

25 Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 36, cf. also 40 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

26 Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 324 (see chap. 10, n. 76).

27 Neirynck, “John and the Synoptics,” 172–79, particularly 172–73, 175, 179.

28 Guillaume, Luc interprète des Anciennes Traditions sur la Résurrection de Jésus, 50–65, 265–74.

29 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 119.

30 Robertson, “Fourth Gospel,” 5:312.

31 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1193.

32 Brown, John, 2:992–993. Brown then surveys more than a dozen interpretations of scholars who seem unsure of how the touching and the ascension relate in John’s text here.

33 Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 162, mentioning Sanders, Lindars, Morris, and Brown as examples.

34 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 281n327 (see chap. 1, n. 30); Perkins, Resurrection, 174–76 (see excursus 2, n. 111); cf. Perkins, “I Have Seen the Lord,” 38–40; Evans, Resurrection and the New Testament, 87 (see chap. 17, n. 74); Jansen, Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 50–51 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

35 Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus, chap. 6 (see excursus 2, n. 111).

36 Willi Marxen, Die Auferstehung Jesu von Nazareth (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1968), 64.

37 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 605, 665–66 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Harris, Raised Immortal, 55; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 209, 628 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 161–64; Wenham, Easter Enigma, 95.

38 These readings are found in the NRSV, ESV, CSB, NASV, NIV, NLT, NEB, RSV, Williams, and the Kingdom New Testament (translated by N. T. Wright).

39 Such as the KJV, the ASV of 1901, the Confraternity New Testament, or the French Bible Society’s translation.

40 We saw earlier that Matthew does answer this question regarding the women who met the risen Jesus after they left the empty tomb (28:9–10), as does John regarding the appearance to Mary Magdalene (20:17). But none of the canonical Gospels state whether the male disciples ever did the same.

41 Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 102–33 (see chap. 20, n. 39), esp. 103–4, 115–16, 118, 127, 131–33. The two quotations are on pages 103 and 127 respectively.

42 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, particularly 450, also 452–55, 533.

43 Brown, John, 2:1028–29, 1031.

44 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 363.

45 There is much scholarly speculation that those who were doing the testifying here were members of the Johannine community, perhaps in Ephesus, the traditional location from which this Gospel was often said to have been written. But familiarity would seem to be a prerequisite, since the language and ideas in chapter 21 are very similar to those of the book and author as a whole, hence the popularity of the idea that it may be a Johannine school of thought here. See Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 146–47, Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief, an Analytic Study of the Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 287, cf. the remainder of chap. 10. A few other responses are found in Brown, John, 2:1077–82; Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1217–22; Osborne, Resurrection Narratives, 254–56. A number of options are discussed in Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 138–51 in particular (see chap. 10, n. 20).

46 Tenney, John, 287.

47 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 363; cf. Bauckham’s extended argument in support of this statement on pages 362–83. See also the discussion of John 21:24 in the sources above. Brown confirms some of these items on the early circulation of John’s Gospel as well in John, 2:1077–78.

48 Brown, John, 2:1110–17.

49 Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1237–38; Brown agrees in John, 2:1117–22; cf. also Tenney, John, 293.

50 Brown, John, 2:1118; Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1240–41.

51 Even Rudolf Bultmann treats John 1:1 and 20:28 as the two best cases in the New Testament where Jesus is called God. But given all the questions concerning the anarthrous Greek construction in John 1:1, the acclamation of the clearest case would probably go to 20:28. See Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:129 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

52 Brown, New Testament Christology, 188–89 (see chap. 8, n. 17). Likewise, on John 20:28 see Murray J. Harris’s highly regarded monograph, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 105–30.

53 Cullmann, Christology of the New Testament, 200–201, 207–9, 213, 216, 234–35, 237, 307 (see chap. 11, n. 14). But compare Harris, Jesus as God, 123n85, also 111n28.

54 Some examples of this twofold approach would include Acts 2:22–28, 31–32; 3:13–26; 13:23–39; 17:1–4; 26:22–25.

55 Bernard Ramm, “The Evidence of Prophecy and Miracle,” in Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 253–63. The quotation above is found on 253.

56 Any study of the most sophisticated prophecy arguments by careful scholars should include at least the following works: Hugh G. Gauch, “Best Practices for Prophecy Arguments,” Philosophia Christi 16 (2014): 255–82; Hugh Gauch, John A. Bloom, and Robert C. Newman, “Public Theology and Scientific Method: Formulating Reasons That Count Across Worldviews,” Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 45–88; Newman, Bloom, and Gauch, “Public Theology and Prophecy Data: Factual Evidence That Counts for the Biblical World View,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003): 79–110. The following citations constitute a four-part dialogue in print between a Christian physicist (Newman) and an atheist philosopher (Evan Fales): (1) Newman, “Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” in Geivett and Habermas, In Defense of Miracles, 214–25 (see chap. 7, n. 18); (2) Evan Fales, “Robert C. Newman: Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” Philosophia Christi 3 (2001): 22–25; (3) Newman, “On Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,” Philosophia Christi 3 (2001): 63–67; (4) Newman’s final response is included in the Gauch, Bloom, and Newman, “Public Theology and Scientific Method” cited above, 77–78; Newman, ed., The Evidence of Prophecy: Fulfilled Prediction as a Testimony to the Truth of Christianity (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1988); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); Kenny Barfield, The Prophet Motive: Examining the Reliability of the Biblical Prophets (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1995); Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody, 1953), esp. 91–124.

57 These three forms include the excellent historical evidence that Jesus was a miracle worker, as is admitted by virtually all critical scholars today (however these events are defined), the case to be made for carefully documented contemporary miracles occurring around the world today, and the resurrection argument by itself.

58 F. F. Bruce, The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 14–15, 18–19 in particular. The quotation is on 14.

59 This message is found in early creedal traditions such as Rom 1:3–4; 4:24–25; 10:9; 2 Tim 2:8–9, as well as in Acts sermon summaries like 2:31–36; 4:10; 5:30–32; 13:29–39; 17:2–4.

60 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (see chap. 2, n. 22). The two quotations are from 24 and 26 respectively.

61 Dodd, 16.

62 Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 310 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Casey, Jesus, 134, 137; Johnson, Real Jesus, 119–20 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 270, 380–81; cf. 319; Robertson, “Fourth Gospel,” 5:317; cf. Brown, Jesus: God and Man, 96–102, 104 (see excursus 2, n. 123).

63 Even in the earliest creedal traditions (Rom 1:3–4; 10:9) and Acts sermon summaries (2:22–36; 5:29–32; 10:36–43; 13:27–39; 17:30–31), this was the case.

64 Such as John 14:19; Acts 4:2; Rom 6:4–5; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:18, 20–23, 53–57; 2 Cor 4:14; Phil 3:20–21; 1 Thess 4:13–18; 1 Pet 1:3–4, 8–9; 1 John 3:2–3.

65 For an examination and refutation of ways in which to take John 20:28 that do not include worship of Jesus as fully divine, see Randy Rheaume, An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Son’s Relationship to the Father in John’s Gospel: God’s Equal and Subordinate (Lewiston: Mellen, 2014), 125–34.

66 For many excellent and worthwhile thoughts on this subject of witness, see Joel B. Green, “‘Witnesses of His Resurrection’: Resurrection, Salvation, Discipleship, and Mission in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 227–46.

67 See McDowell, Fate of the Apostles (see chap. 12, n. 19). Regarding the question of whether any of the original apostles recanted their faith in the face of persecution, the threat of death, or otherwise, see 6, along with McDowell’s summarized conclusions on 263.

68 See William L. Lane, “Living a Life of Faith in the Face of Death: The Witness of Hebrews,” and Allison A. Trites, “Witness and the Resurrection in the Apocalypse of John,” both in Longenecker, Life in the Face of Death, 247–69 and 270–88 respectively.

69 See Lincoln’s very thoughtful essay, “I Am the Resurrection and the Life,” 122–44, esp. 139–44 on Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (see chap. 19, n. 29).

70 For an example of the contrast here, see Habermas and Shaw, “Agnostic Historical Jesus Scholars,” 485–95 (see chap. 17, n. 5).

71 A few examples of the latter include the following scholars: Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 73 (see chap. 5, n. 40); Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 74–79; Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 446.

72 As discussed in the chapter on Mark above, critical scholars almost always interpret the men dressed in white in Mark and in the dazzling clothes in Luke as angels.

73 Incidentally, Luke records two angels at the site of Jesus’s ascension to heaven (Acts 1:10–11), though no angels are mentioned in Luke’s corresponding ascension account (Luke 24:50–52).

74 See the discussion in the chapter on Mark for further explication of these comments.

75 Luke records at least two other appearances in Acts 1:1–11, but it is difficult to ascertain if these are repeated accounts of the last two appearances in Luke 24, to the disciples and with the ascension. Also, the appearance to Peter in Luke 24:34 is simply recounted rather than being narrated.

76 While discussing some of these matters (181–88), Crossan mentions that the count for the women visitors to the tomb takes a reverse order from Mark to John in that “the women seem to be gradually disappearing, from three to two to one.” Crossan also notes John’s “we” comment in 20:2. See Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, 182 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

77 It is not being considered here whether the angels were located outside or inside the tomb and so on, because we are not referring to differences in the accounts, but rather to the presence of multiplied details in the narration.

78 As noted by David Wood in his chapter, “A Response to Dan Barker’s ‘Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,’” in Defending the Resurrection: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, ed. James Patrick Holding (Maitland, FL: Xulon, 2010), 87.

79 Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 66–67.

80 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 103–4, 111–13, 118, 124, 131.

23

Acts 1:1–11

The last of our treatments of the Gospel resurrection narratives involves the first eleven verses of the Book of Acts. Then we will present some thoughts on the Acts sermon summaries that most scholars think are present within these narratives. This last part, in particular, will be very helpful as we launch later into our study of the historicity of the resurrection appearances.

We ended the previous chapter by pointing out that there has been a comparative flurry of interest in the historicity of the Gospels during the past couple of decades. This trend is due to a number of factors, such as the predominant scholarly view that the Gospels resemble Greco-Roman bioi or the numerous studies on the early traditions that lie behind the Gospels. Of course, it cannot hurt that a few critical scholars have supported much earlier composition dates for the Synoptic Gospels, thus making them much closer to the time of Jesus. Or, it might have much to do with several research projects that have gone further in establishing the presence of eyewitness observations in the Gospels.

It would seem to follow that the outworking of any trends regarding the reliability of the Gospels would probably have ramifications for how the book of Acts is viewed. Just as with the Gospels, studies that support the historicity of Acts are very helpful in this sense. No doubt the best study of these aspects is Craig Keener’s four-volume behemoth on Acts (over 4,600 total pages)!1

Luke 1:1–4 in Light of the Reliability of the Acts 1:1–2

We have already discussed Luke’s introduction to his Gospel, especially his claim that he had investigated the events in the life of Jesus with the eyewitnesses and others who knew and had reported the historical events. Luke’s purpose was so that Theophilus could be assured of the certainty of these reports (Luke 1:1–4). With Donald Guthrie, we can agree that “it is a fair inference that the principles which apply to the gospel will apply equally to Acts.”2

We also saw that John had his own distinctive way of recording his notion of being a reliable witness. Rather than explain his research intentions, as Luke did, John more simply reported that he was an onlooker who was present at the cross and testified to what occurred there (John 19:35). Moreover, John’s Gospel closes with what most scholars conclude is a sort of signatory note of confirmation appended by a group of additional witnesses who endorsed his words (21:24).

The book of Acts begins by referring to Luke, both of which were addressed to a certain Theophilus. Acts 1:1 opens with “In the first book, Theophilus,” thereby earning Acts the moniker of “Luke, volume 2.” However, unlike the opening paragraph in the Gospel, there is no real effort here to repeat the earlier words regarding gathering competent sources and ascertaining accurate historical information concerning Jesus. In that sense, Luke’s approach in Acts has more in common with John’s comments.3

So how does Acts make statements regarding its own reliability? One major way consists of the “we passages” found in the second half of the book, where it appears that the author claims to have been present with Paul on many different occasions.4 If so, of course, the author could be considered as an eyewitness to a number of the events that occurred in the book. Some of the places where the “we passages” occur include Philippi (Acts 16:10–17), Troas (20:5–15), Jerusalem (21:1–18), as well as being with Paul on the ship that sank and later in the city of Rome (27:1–28:16). Joseph Fitzmyer thinks that it is quite possible that Luke used some personal records here, perhaps such as his own diary or some travel notes. Fitzmyer sees the end result as being positive regarding historicity.5

A crucial means of showing the reliability of Acts is the inclusion of the sermon summaries, chiefly in chapters 1–5, 10, 13, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, 17. A key theme throughout most of these passages is that the disciples were “witnesses” to the appearances of the risen Jesus (1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31).6 This idea of being a witness (martura, 1:22) or a group of apostles being “witnesses” (martures, 3:15) is reminiscent of John 19:35 and again has the sense of eyewitness testimony and being present for these all-important resurrection events.

These sermon summaries support the notion of textual reliability in these chapters because they indicate that the author was careful to research, preserve, and include the best indications that evidence his text. That involved intelligence, good research skills, and the sense to know which sermon summaries to utilize to support the particular points that are being made at each juncture.

Thus, the opening verses in Luke, the texts on being an eyewitness in John, along with the relevant passages in Acts are actually confirmed by more than just the words of the authors themselves. There are a number of individual details in each of these books concerning events, chronology, geography, local customs, political and legal details, and so on that indicate they really were being observed carefully, investigated well, and then recorded. We provided a list of some of these areas in the previous chapter, where this was true in the Gospel of John. Before that, we noted signs of historicity in Luke apropos to a couple of his resurrection appearance reports in terms of his preserving an early creedal tradition as well as a concise appearance report. Acts is just full of these areas of confirmation. It may even be unsurpassed among New Testament sources in terms of its external confirmation. We already saw one major category regarding the sermon summaries.

Other examples of external corroboration in Acts are not difficult to locate. If every last case of confirmation from Acts were counted, big and small alike, researchers would have to tally data as divergent as information concerning major and minor rulers, the names and locations of countries and colonies, as well as geography with regard to routes taken on Paul’s different missionary journeys. Further, there are also the proper titles of various rulers, legal proceedings in various courts and jurisdictions, especially those of Roman and Jewish law, and perhaps most of all, the confirmation on behalf of numerous historical events that Luke records in this book. Acts mentions literally scores of these and other details, and many of the facts were hardly available even in the first century except on inscriptions.7

Many of the statements in Acts obviously cannot be double-checked. But many other reports have been researched thoroughly and confirmed. Incredibly, Craig Keener even estimates that perhaps as many as 100 different items throughout Acts have been verified!8 As examples, Joseph Fitzmyer enumerates nine incidents established by other independent sources, followed by an additional half dozen rather obscure and often amazing facts that Luke likewise reports correctly.9

Arguably the best example here is the work of Sir William Ramsay, the famous archaeologist and professor at the universities of Oxford and Aberdeen at the turn of the twentieth century. Trained in nineteenth-century German liberalism at the University of Tübingen and holding to those views,10 he was a noted archaeologist and authority on the history of Asia Minor. Through his excavation of this region, and contrary to his own opinions on the New Testament, he began to change his views concerning Luke, Paul, and Acts. After decades of research in this area, expressed in several major books on these subjects, he had distinguished himself as perhaps the greatest authority of his day on these subjects. To sum up his research, Ramsay concluded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”11

Bringing Ramsay’s research closer to the present, another outstanding example was the work of former Oxford University ancient Roman history specialist A. N. Sherwin-White, who devoted most of an entire volume to the verification of legal and social matters in Acts. After checking many minutiae, he concluded, “For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”12

Of course, not everything in Acts has been problem free. The two most serious historical challenges may be, first, the details in Acts 5:36–37, where the Pharisee and famous teacher Gamaliel was speaking to the Sanhedrin. The problem concerns the details regarding Jewish rebels Theudas and Judas the Galilean vis-à-vis Josephus’s treatment of a rebel named Theudas (Ant. 20.5.1), who came on the scene about ten years after the dating in Acts. Of course, there could be two such men named Theudas, and Josephus, who is not without historical issues of his own, could also be mistaken as well as Luke. The second issue is the seeming disagreement concerning various travel issues between Acts and Paul’s own writings. Perhaps best known is the question of how many trips Paul made to Jerusalem after his conversion.13

Fitzmyer adds that reports of miraculous events may be the most problematic areas for some scholars.14 Strangely enough, while expressing his generous praise for Luke as an historian as in the comment above, Ramsay also concedes that Luke’s sources are not always uniform: “It seems clear that the authorities on which Luke depended were not equally good,” thereby causing a few inconsistencies in Acts.15

To conclude this category, the overall point here is that there is something in common between Luke 1:1–4, a couple of “witness texts” in John, and a favorite theme of Luke’s regarding being a “witness” to the facts of the Christian gospel in Acts, with that message being carried through a number of passages throughout. Most obviously, they are all statements, and as such, they could be either true or false. It might be said that they are claims in search of good evidence.

Further, there are indeed indications in each of these three books that their authors produced the sort of veridical information that did indeed back up their assertions, especially regarding Jesus’s resurrection appearances, which has been the focus in these chapters. In Luke, the claim to have known eyewitnesses and to have done research so as to ascertain the truth of the gospel may have been what resulted in the citation of the creedal tradition in Luke 24:34 and what has been identified as a concise resurrection appearance account in 24:36–49.

The witness verse in John 19:35 included very crucial details concerning Jesus’s crucifixion. Though there is little immediate confirmation in the text itself, there is a certain surprise element here as John and the women unexpectedly witness a watery fluid coming from Jesus’s side wound along with the expected blood flow. However, as we point out in our discussion of crucifixion, there are some sources, including a Roman text, that back up the incident of imposing such a spear wound for the purpose of ensuring death. Further, John also included a concise appearance account in 21:19–2, along with a second narrative in 21:26–29 with concise characteristics that functions as a derivative to the previous concise text. This means that the second pericope does not stand entirely on its own, but is a derivative or “add-on” to the appearance in verses 19–21, yet while still manifesting concise characteristics. So John includes one very helpful crucifixion observation along with two accounts that speak to the issue of veridicality.

The Acts witness theme is by far the strongest and most veridical point from our three sources. Given the incredibly strong background historical data which provide general confirmation for large portions of Acts,16 this arguably makes it all the more likely that Luke was also careful in preserving both the data contained in the “we passages” as well as the many sermon summaries throughout this writing. If C. H. Dodd is correct that these “sermonettes” go back to the apostolic kerygma in the early Jerusalem church,17 and if Bart Ehrman is right that many of these creeds date from just one to two years after the cross and that some were derived from the apostles themselves,18 then this is a very strong evidential argument for the data of the gospel proclamation.

Here we have a powerful 1–2–3 punch then. In addition to the individually evidenced creedal traditions, we also have the likelihood that the “we passages” exhibit ensured eyewitness reports, with both being supported by the background of a generally confirmed historical setting for the book of Acts in which the creeds and “we passages” appear.

So the resurrection appearance material in both the Gospels and Acts is very helpful and adds further considerations that favor the historicity of these events. Guthrie understates nicely the value of Luke’s testimony in Acts: “The era has now passed when the historicity of Acts can with any plausibility be wholly discredited.”19

Acts 1:3: en pollois tekmēriois as the Degree of Evidence for Jesus’s Resurrection Appearances

After the introduction in the initial two verses of Acts, Luke presents a loaded verse 3. He reports that after Jesus’s suffering and crucifixion, he appeared often to his apostles and provided many powerful evidences that he was alive. Next, he explains that the appearances lasted over a period of forty days, the only New Testament reference that addresses the time sequence. Lastly, Luke identifies the chief topic for their discussions: the kingdom of God.

Regarding the evidences for these appearances, the old King James Version utilizes the well-known words “many infallible proofs,” which appears to overdo it somewhat, but perhaps not. Contemporary translations often render these words as “many convincing proofs” (NRSV, NASB, CSB) or simply “many proofs” (ESV). Luke uses a form of the Greek term tekmērion here, the only time that it is used in the New Testament.

Both the philosopher Aristotle and much later the physician Galen distinguished between types and levels of evidence, such as tekmērion, meaning “proof,” and sēmeion, meaning a “sign.” But rather incredibly, when Aristotle draws his distinctions, the English terms used to translate tekmērion are “infallible” (a term he uses often) and a “complete proof.”20 Did that influence the KJV rendering above? Aristotle stated that “when people think that what they have said cannot be refuted,” then they are thinking in terms of “a complete proof.” Further, in matters involving a proof (tekmērion), this Greek philosopher stated that the issue has been settled already. “Signs” on the other hand, apparently can be stronger, approaching “proof,” or they can be weaker—as in making a decent point but still refutable. Then there is the term “probability” which is presumably a little lower still, the way Aristotle uses it.21

However, while the background in Aristotle provides an exciting jaunt, what this Greek philosopher meant by these terms does not necessarily help us to know the chief question: what did Luke mean when he employed these words? Many scholars have “weighed in” and offered their comments concerning the background and meaning of pollois tekmērion “many proofs.” The root word tekmar means a sign. The verb tekmairō indicates proving something by sure evidences.

Of course it is unknown whether Luke may have read Aristotle, but this question need not concern us here. The meaning of these Greek terms was known well enough from a plentiful variety of sources that Luke would have gathered this general sense anyway. For example, tekmērion was an old term used commonly in both ancient and Koine Greek; it appears three times in the Septuagint, once in the Old Testament Apocrypha, once again in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and twice in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. It regularly means “convincing evidences” or even “convincing proofs.”22

Moreover, beyond all these sources using the word at that time, first and foremost, this is just how Luke used the term anyway. Both Pheme Perkins and Craig Keener point out that, as the author of both books, Luke’s reference to tekmērion in Acts 1:3 refers back directly to the disciples’ own empirical experiences with their risen Lord in Luke 24:39–40, where the “proof” came from seeing Jesus up close, presumably touching him, and doing so as a group where they could always inquire of one of their colleagues later, “Am I right about this or that?” Further, just as the very next verses in Acts 1:4–5 refer to eating with Jesus and being charged by him not to leave Jerusalem until they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, this corresponds rather exactly to the next verses in Luke 24:41–43, 49.23 John Alsup refers to the tekmērion as “proofs of his reality” and mentions that there may be “a pre-lukan [sic] source” behind Acts 1:3–4.24

Regarding Jesus’s appearances occurring over forty days,25 besides that pertinent information being helpful by itself, another fascinating truth emerges from the Greek. Harris and Robertson both point out that the preposition dia in 1:3 means that Jesus appeared to his disciples “intermittently” or “at intervals” rather than “continuously” or “daily.” As Robertson adds, this is the same result we get when we consider the approximately one dozen appearances of Jesus over this forty-day period.26

The last phrase in Acts 1:3 informs us that Jesus’s chief topic of discussion with his disciples during the forty days of his intermittent appearances was the kingdom of God. This was their central theme and it remained incredibly consistent as the chief topic during Jesus’s earthly ministry (Mark 1:14–15; 9:42–49; Matt 6:33), the chief topic of the resurrected Jesus during his forty days of appearances (Acts 1:3), and the chief topic with which the glorified Jesus charged Paul on the way to Damascus, from which Paul never deviated, remaining true to this word until the end (Acts 28:23–24).

Acts 1:6–7: When Would Jesus Return?

At this point, the disciples interject with a question: would the coming of the Holy Spirit signal the time when Jesus would restore the kingdom of God? Jesus responded quickly that it was not for the disciples to know the time of the kingdom, which was a matter that the heavenly Father had “set by his own authority” (NRSV).

However, this does raise an important issue for us to address here briefly, since it has a major bearing on many of the items that come up later in our study. When this issue was discussed elsewhere, especially in the Synoptic Gospels, did Jesus seem to be mistaken regarding his thoughts on the time of his coming?27 In particular, did Jesus believe in the imminent coming of God’s kingdom and mistakenly hold the view that it would culminate very shortly, as per texts like Mark 9:1; 13:30; and Matt 10:23?

This objection must be addressed from different angles. Ben Witherington asserts repeatedly that none of these texts unequivocally teaches that the coming of either Jesus or the kingdom of God must be soon, or right around the corner. At most, these texts indicate that the kingdom could come at any time, or that it may even occur a long time hence.28 While it is impossible here to do more than make a few summarizing comments, it is obvious that many other scholars in recent decades agree with Witherington.

Perhaps even the most frequent contemporary scholarly response to Jesus’s remark in Mark 9:1 (cf. Matt 16:28; Luke 9:27) is that Jesus was referring either to his transfiguration, which follows immediately in each of these three narratives, or even to his resurrection.29 On the other hand, Rudolf Bultmann and those who follow him did not even think that Jesus said these words in the first place, but that it was rather something that the church placed in Jesus’s mouth to express their own hope!30

It is exceptionally difficult to take Mark 13:30 as Jesus’s comment that this present generation would definitely witness his return, since, just two verses later (13:32), Jesus specifically asserts that even he did not know when he would return! One of the most common views of this text is that Jesus was addressing two major questions at the outset of this discourse—the fall of Jerusalem and the temple and the issue of his return and the end of the age (Matt 24:1–3; but also in Mark 13 and Luke 21). According to what we might term the two-question model, the answer to the first question is that it will occur in the lifetime of this present generation (Mark 13:30), while the answer to the second question regarding Jesus’s coming is that he could not say, since he did not know that time (Mark 13:32).31

Regarding Matt 10:23, it is often noted that it would have been physically impossible for the disciples to have ministered in every city of Israel even during the remainder of Jesus’s earthly life, let alone before the end of this particular, brief missionary trip! Further, few knew better than Matthew that Jesus did not return again before the deaths of at least most of the apostles. If so, then why would Matthew have reproduced such a spurious report, and on an incisive topic? Since Matthew would have presumably not reported an obvious mistake by Jesus, it follows that this is simply what neither Jesus nor Matthew meant!

By far the most common scholarly interpretation of this passage is that Jesus’s words refer not simply to his immediate disciples and this particular missionary trip, but that these teachings extended far beyond this occasion and into the future, ongoing spread of the gospel message all the way until Jesus’s return.32 In a sense, it might even have been viewed as a prophecy that extended to the future Christian missionary work of the church. The view that Jesus was mistaken simply does not fit the chronology here even one little bit.33

At least four additional considerations make it highly unlikely that Jesus taught that the future aspect of God’s kingdom must come shortly. These four considerations appear strong enough to trump any of the exegetical considerations above, in the sense of pushing the interpretation to one of the other, nonimminent, options.

First, there are also many Gospel texts that clearly indicate that these events would not occur quickly but at a much later time. For a few examples, some of the disciples would die for their faith (Matt 24:9; Luke 21:16; John 16:2), the gospel message would be preached first to the entire world (Mark 13:10; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8), Jerusalem would be under the control of the Gentiles for an unspecified amount of time, and the Jewish people would be dispersed throughout the world (Luke 21:24). Items such as these do not take place between Jesus’s death and the writing of the Gospels!34 Obviously then, most of these items could not have taken place in such a short time span and some of them easily could have stretched out for hundreds of years each (such as Jerusalem being occupied until its time was up, the Jews being dispersed throughout the world, or the gospel message reaching the ends of the earth).

Moreover, in more than one parable, we are also told that the master delayed his coming for a lengthy time (Matt 24:48; 25:19). Another intriguing saying reports both that there was more than one day of the Son of Man, and that, while the disciples would long to experience one of these days, they would in fact not do so (Luke 17:22). Significantly, Jesus taught another parable because some people thought that the kingdom of God was going to arrive right away (Luke 19:11–27). So we have alternative meanings of the texts in question. Further, other passages make it very difficult to conclude that Jesus could only have meant that the kingdom would necessarily come immediately.

Second, even highly skeptical scholars have generally held that especially Luke historicized Mark’s interpretation and placed Jesus’s coming way ahead in the indefinite future. Recall that Luke is the one who reported that the gospel would be heard first around the entire world, that Jerusalem would be captured by the Gentiles and remain under their control, and that the Jewish people would be scattered throughout the world.35

Here is the principal point: Luke certainly did not interpret these same texts (including the ones that he also wrote himself!) to mean that Jesus had predicted an imminent coming of the future kingdom.36 For if he had done so, he would not have historicized Jesus’s teachings. But if Luke never felt inclined to take these passages in this imminent manner, why should we? In short, if these texts can be taken fairly in alternative ways, like Luke did, especially when there are strong reasons to take them in those other ways, then why do today’s interpreters feel any pressure taking an alternate route themselves?

Third and perhaps most crucially of all, according to the dating of the vast majority of critical scholars, both Matthew and Luke were written about five decades or so after Jesus’s proclamations concerning the time of the future kingdom. On the interpretation that Jesus had predicted his pending return, it certainly should have happened at least between his death and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, especially since these two events are linked (Matt 24:1–3; Luke 21:20–32). Given that the future kingdom of God never arrived, and that Matthew and Luke were writing perhaps even ten years or so beyond that, it would be safe to say that, on the imminent interpretation, Jesus had been mistaken. And the Gospel writers who took the imminent view would have been sadly mistaken too.37

The enormous problem in this case would be that at least Matthew and even Mark to a slightly lesser extent (though Luke is now exempt, since this was not his view) would obviously have knowingly and repeatedly declared that the Lord Jesus had been badly mistaken. This is an exceedingly problematic position, especially given the prominence that the future kingdom occupies in their Gospels.38 So here’s this critical question: did both of these Synoptic authors knowingly report Jesus’s false prophecies over and over (making Jesus a false prophet according to Deut 18:17–22)? Or did Jesus, Matthew, and Mark mean something entirely different by these teachings? The latter answer seems too obvious to even debate.

Fourth, since Jesus specifically declared more than once that he did not know when he would return or when the future kingdom would begin (Mark 13:32; cf. Acts 1:6–7),39 the precise time factor could not be the crucial portion of his message. Something we do not know can hardly be our central message! Rather, it is the nature of the kingdom that occupies this central position. In short, it was the content of Jesus’s kingdom message that was central, not the specific time factor, given that Jesus carefully taught that he did not know that information.

Critical scholars have agreed with this last argument. As Wolfhart Pannenberg explains:

Neither the two-thousand-year interval from the time of Jesus’ earthly appearance nor its continuing quantitative growth is sufficient in itself to let the connection between the activity and fate of Jesus and the expected end of all things discovered then to become untenable. . . . The question as to how much time might elapse between the appearance of Jesus and the coming of the Son of Man is completely irrelevant. The important thing in it is the material correspondence of the coming judgment with the present attitude of men toward Jesus. . . . The delay of the end events, which now amounts to almost two thousand years, is not a refutation of the Christian hope and of the Christian perception of revelation as long as the unity between what happened in Jesus and the eschatological future is maintained.40

This unity between Jesus and the future is primarily represented by the “divine confirmation of Jesus” as seen in his resurrection.41

Thomas Torrance adds that, due to misunderstanding both the notion of imminence as well as the truth of both the present and future aspects of the kingdom, this entire issue “looks rather like a legend of the critics!”42 N. T. Wright adds, “The old scholarly warhorse of the ‘delay of the parousia’ has had its day at last, and can be put out to grass once and for all.”43 It is no surprise that G. R. Beasley-Murray declares that even most historical Jesus scholars “are not greatly concerned with the question of whether Jesus was mistaken regarding the time of the end.”44

In sum, every passage that critics cite to show that Jesus was mistaken regarding the time of his return or setting up God’s kingdom is exceptionally problematic. This applies especially to the three major texts that were viewed here. But even after all the exegetical work is finished, the four additional considerations pointed out above do appear to nullify any angle that would make Jesus mistaken.

Acts 1:8: Take the Gospel to the Entire World

As stated earlier, if we count the longer ending that was written after Mark’s Gospel (which is usually dated to the second century and therefore may not be very late anyway) as an appropriate “stand-in” (especially in the case that the original ending of that Gospel may have been lost), then all four of the Gospels pay special attention to the application of the resurrection message. Thus, defending Christianity and proclaiming the gospel’s salvation message, while of absolutely central import, are not the entire proclamation. The resurrection message also extends to relationships with theological truths and practical ministry applications as well.

To refer once again to a dialogue on the subject of Jesus’s resurrection between N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, both speakers emphasize this last category of ministry. In his opening statement, Wright notes that resurrection ministry does not consist merely of knowing that the Easter message is true and then relaxing, rejoicing, and waiting for our place to open up in heaven. Rather, Wright emphasizes Scripture’s message that “Jesus is raised, therefore God’s new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do.”45

Then in his own opening statement, Crossan returns to this same theme. Likening Jesus’s resurrection and the final resurrection of the dead to the two “transcendental bookends” and picturing someone asking what is their job right now in this life, Crossan states that some Christians might answer, “Be very quiet, stay very holy, and pray—and wait.” But Crossan, like Wright, thinks strongly that this is a common but mistaken view, because, as Wright had already said, “You have a job to do.”46

All four Gospels share one of these key ministry applications in common. In each of these volumes, Jesus tells his disciples to go to the entire world and preach the gospel message. Even without resorting to the longer ending in Mark, Jesus still taught his disciples in various ways throughout that text that they must carry on his message and especially the preaching of the Gospel (as in Mark 13:9–10). We have already mentioned this theme in the Gospels, but the statement in Acts 1:8 may be the best known statement of this sort among them, with Jesus telling them to branch out from where they were, Jerusalem, into ever-widening areas into Judea, Samaria, and to the rest of the world.

Kenneth Gangel mentions the intriguing comment heard sometimes that Acts 1:8 could serve as an accurate outline for the remainder of Acts. On this idea, the gospel went out to Jerusalem (Acts 2:42–8:3),47 then to Judea and Samaria (8:4–12:24), and on to the ends of the earth (12:25–28:31).48

However, preaching the gospel was not the only additional job mentioned in the four Gospels and the first chapter in Acts. For example, after Jesus’s ascension, Peter immediately goes to work doing what the Lord had commanded them. He preaches the first Christian sermon after Jesus ascended (Acts 2:14–41). When he was finished, we are told that the believers’ numbers had grown to approximately 3,000 people.49 But after this sermon, the disciples’ ministry immediately branches out to multiple other jobs: teaching the new converts, sharing both the Lord’s Supper as well as ordinary meals, praying together with the apostles healing the sick and performing other miracles, as well as the believers sharing all of their goods with each other so that no one was in any need whatsoever (2:42–47). Very quickly, everyone indeed had new jobs to do!

As David Gooding reminds his readers, the early Christian preaching and teaching was inaugurated upon the foundation of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and fired up by the coming of the Holy Spirit. It then expanded to the entire world through “missionary and pastoral efforts.”50

Acts 1:9–11: Jesus’s Ascension

We have already addressed the topic of Jesus’s ascension in a fair amount of detail in the chapter on Luke, including addressing several critical objections and other critical responses. Here we will settle for a few additional comments.

Murray Harris notes some differences between the Acts 1 ascension account and the description of the ascension found in Luke 24. The first group of several items is found only in the Acts account: the identification of the forty-day time sequence for Jesus’s resurrection appearances (which presumably include the ascension not occurring on the initial Easter Sunday, as seemed to be the case in Luke); the relation between Jesus’s departing and the coming of the Holy Spirit; the description of the ascension being more detailed in Acts; and the link between the ascension and Jesus’s later return.51 To Harris’s list might also be added that at the ascension in Acts, two angels were present (Acts 1:10, “two men in white robes,” NRSV; cf. Luke 24:4, “two men in dazzling clothes” at the tomb, NRSV).

Harris lists some features in common between the two Lukan accounts too: Jesus did not simply ascend aimlessly into the sky, but went to heaven; the Jesus who rose is the same Jesus who ascended. Both texts mention that Jesus rose in the air rather slowly (anephereto in Luke 24:51; blepontōn autōn, “time to stare,” in Acts 1:9), as opposed to the immediate appearing and disappearing after the crucifixion (such as Luke 24:31b). In both cases, the ascension denotes physical separation of Jesus from his disciples. Lastly, the verbs for Jesus’s actual departure in both cases are passive, meaning that Jesus was acted upon and so participated in his Father’s revelation rather than simply left.52

As we remarked on the Gospel of Luke, the ascension was not simply a rather awkward or embarrassed way for Jesus to get out of the story, as critics sometimes assert. After all, Jesus could have simply notified the disciples on one of his visits that he would not be appearing again. Rather, as we have just seen, the ascension was an orderly, planned, and revelatory event. From first to last, it was deliberate and intentional.

Conclusion

The book of Acts is truly a gem that encompasses many separate facets. The initial eleven verses comprise the end of Jesus’s appearances and some key items are taught there. These include the period of the appearances lasting forty days plus that Jesus’s major message after his resurrection was the kingdom of God, which was the same central proclamation that he taught before these last events (both in Acts 1:3).

The presence of the Acts sermon summaries stands out especially in chapters 1–5, 10, and 13, although scholars locate these snippets elsewhere in this book as well. Due largely to these synopses almost always treating Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, these passages preserve remarkably early, compact, and authoritative teachings.53 Ehrman thinks that these and other early creedal traditions probably came from Jerusalem and at least some of them may even have been authored by the apostles.54

Beyond the strength of these sermon summaries, the additional combination of reliable reporting depicted in Luke 1:1–4 and Acts 1:1–2, the nature of the Gospels as Greco-Roman bioi, additional aspects of ancient historiography, the “we passages” in Acts, plus supplementary backup data from helpful archaeological finds, makes the first five volumes of the canonical New Testament valuable sources for the historicity of Jesus. The creedal traditions in particular are most helpful regarding the reported resurrection appearances. Luke reports the presence of evidence here (en pollois tekmēriois, Acts 1:3). The valuable stories and lessons primarily from Peter and Paul all combine for a useful and even exciting read.

But the historical Jesus and his death, resurrection, and ascension in Acts do not represent the end of the story in Acts or the rest of the New Testament. Throughout the Gospels, the remainder of Acts, and the Epistles, this gospel message had to be translated into ministry, preached to others, and employed to help heal a hurting world. It was a holistic message, beginning with Jesus and his gospel and then reaching out to others, as Jesus taught in the account that culminated with the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:25–37.

Notes

1 Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012). Keener’s first volume of this commentary is 1,100 pages long and includes five chapters on historiography, two chapters on genre, one chapter on the historicity and accuracy of the Acts speeches, one chapter on the authorship of Acts, and another chapter on the date of composition for Acts. Another noteworthy volume on related themes is Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). Almost 500 pages in length, Hemer concentrates primarily on the question of the book of Acts and historiography in the ancient Greco-Roman world. These two volumes provide thousands of cross-references to ancient non-Christian literature.

2 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 385 (see chap. 10, n. 134).

3 Note that the use of “Luke” here reflects the name of the traditional author rather than attempting to decide the issue by fiat.

4 For a brief outline of some interpretations here, see Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 378–89; cf. 837–38.

5 Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible 31 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1998),

6 An important caution needs to be issued here. Many (and perhaps even most) critical scholars think that the term witnesses as used by Luke in these particular contexts is a Lukan propensity—a term that Luke likes to use regularly. Two examples of scholars holding this position are Perkins, Resurrection, 167, 207 (see excursus 2, n. 111); and Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 33, 51 (see chap. 10, n. 70). However, whether or not the term witness is a Lukan word is not at all the major point. There is absolutely no problem if this or that word or phrase in the Acts speeches derives from Luke’s personal vocabulary. Rather, the primary issue here concerns whether or not Luke accurately summarizes the person’s speech. In other words, what difference does it make, as long as Luke is recording accurately the words of an early sermon summary, if he paraphrases or uses some of his own vocabulary here and there? Does not something similar happen many times over when more than one Gospel records a parallel saying by Jesus in slightly different words, which could even sound opposed to each other at points (cf. Luke 14:26 with Matt 10:37, along with many other texts)? The evidential issue in each case concerns whether or not the speaker’s words are fairly and accurately represented. As Guthrie states succinctly, “The content is historically true, but the words are Luke’s own”; see New Testament Introduction, 381. Classicist Colin Hemer makes this point extraordinarily well with regard to the Acts sermon summaries in Book of Acts, 419–21. As Hemer adds, the truth of the issue here is still “the evident primitive quality of much of the material” (422). Dodd agrees wholeheartedly with the assertion that many of these Acts sermon summaries are both exceptionally early as well as accurately recorded, though the Lukan qualities may often prevail over the Petrine or Pauline words. See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–26 (see chap. 8, n. 70). While Joseph Fitzmyer is not quite as positive as Dodd, his words are similar in Acts of the Apostles, 124–25.

7 Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, 126; cf. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 372.

8 Personal correspondence from Craig Keener, dated February 3, 2017.

9 Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, 126–27.

10 William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 3rd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), 7–8. Ramsay shares other biographical information and reasons for his changes of view in his volume, The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 17–30.

11 William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 4th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920), 222. Ramsay presents some additional thoughts on the trustworthiness of Acts and related ideas in St. Paul the Traveller, 1–10, 249–53, and 363–82, with the latter material devoted to Acts 1–4.

12 Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, 189 (see chap. 8, n. 67). Guthrie also includes a brief section on Luke’s political knowledge in New Testament Introduction, 371–73.

13 These two examples along with other thoughts on this topic are found in Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 208–9 (see chap. 10, n. 20). To the reader who is wondering why the infamous issue of Governor Quirinius and the Roman census of Luke 2 was not mentioned as a problem, we are of course only concerned in this discussion with the book of Acts. For details on the differences between Paul and Acts regarding Paul’s trips to Jerusalem, see the discussion in Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 373–76. Incidentally, Keener also agrees that there are presently only two or three items in Acts “that look disconfirmed” (personal correspondence from Craig Keener, dated February 3, 2017).

14 Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, 125–26.

15 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 367–73, quotation on 367.

16 We reported above the comment by Craig Keener, the author of the most detailed Acts study volumes of all time, where he approximates that there are perhaps 100 or so already-confirmed historical, chronological, political, social, legal, geographical, or customs reports in Acts. In contrast, Keener and other scholars list less than five potentially disconfirmed details in Acts. If he is anywhere near correct, this would seem to place Acts in the overall group of documents that is vying for the best-established writing in the ancient world!

17 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–26.

18 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 109–13, 141, 172, 232, 261–62 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

19 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 371. However, to complete the remainder of the citation above, Guthrie also notes: “but nevertheless many scholars find difficulty in some of Luke’s details.” We have already noted several examples of this earlier in this chapter.

20 Notice that we are speaking here of the English words used to translate Aristotle rather than the original Greek, and, of course, someone could always take issue with the translation.

21 The Works of Aristotle: Translated into English under the Editorship of W. D. Ross, M.A. vol. 9, Rhet., ed. W. Rhys Roberts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924), 1356b–1357b. The quotations are from 1357b.

22 Some of these instances include the Wis. 5:11; 3 Macc. 3:24; and Josephus, J.W. 5.39; 17.128. See also Green, “Witnesses of His Resurrection,” 229–30 (see chap. 22, n. 66); A. T. Robertson, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 3:6.

23 Perkins, Resurrection, 169; Keener, Gospel of John, 2:1186 (see chap. 9, n. 111); Lüdemann seems to agree as well in Early Christianity, 25.

24 Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories (see excursus 2, n. 111). The two quotations are found on 70 and 80, respectively.

25 Some commentators such as Moltmann, Way of Jesus Christ, 218 (see chap. 15, n. 28) and Brown, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 1377 (see chap. 19, n. 29), think that the forty-day period is meant symbolically. Thomas Oden treats the forty-day period as the literal time length of Jesus’s resurrection appearances; Word of Life, 2:503 (see chap. 12, n. 34). Alsup mentions the time frame but does not comment on it much, except that it introduces “a new element” that had not been introduced before; see Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 69–70.

26 Harris, Raised Immortal, 50 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Robertson, “Acts of the Apostles,” 3:6.

27 The following is a significantly expanded treatment from my volume Risen Jesus and Future Hope, 129–32 (see chap. 2, n. 33).

28 Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 36, 44, 48.

29 For just a small sampling, see France, Gospel of Mark, who lists these two plus at least five additional possible events on 343–46 (see chap. 10, n. 87); Hurtado, Mark, 139–40; 142–43 (see chap. 13, n. 1); Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 264 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 436–40 (see chap. 20, n. 10); Keener, Matthew, 278 (see chap. 16, n. 73); Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World, 37–39; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, Anchor Bible 28–28A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 786–90; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 365 (see excursus 1, n. 65); Evans, Luke, 149–51, 153 (see chap. 17, n. 100); George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 323; William Foxwell Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible 26 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 201; G. B. Caird, Saint Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 130; Darrell L. Bock with Benjamin I. Simpson, Jesus the God-Man: The Unity and Diversity of the Gospel Portrayals (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 27; Mounce, Matthew, 165 (see chap. 16, n. 73). Mounce also includes the growth of the church as another option; A. R. C. Leaney, The Gospel according to St. Luke (London: Black, 1966), 166; E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 102; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. (London: Nisbet, 1936) 53–54; Gerard S. Sloyan, The Gospel of Saint Mark (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1960), 68–69.

30 Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 14 (see chap. 15, n. 4).

31 Favoring this response are scholars like France, Gospel of Mark, 500–503; Hurtado, Mark, 211–12, 218, 222–24; Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 559–64, particularly 563; Keener, Matthew, 342–43; Caird, Saint Luke, 198–200; Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 409; William Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 479–82; Ladd, Presence of the Future, 310–11; F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 225–30; Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World, 42; Caird, New Testament Theology, 255–56 (see chap. 11, n. 17); Bock and Simpson, Jesus the God-Man, 27; cf. also Evans, Luke, 307, 310, where Evans appears to move somewhat away from the two-question scenario, only to seemingly embrace it in the end; Mounce, Matthew, 221–22, 226–29, who provides at least six potential explanations, but spends most of his words on the “two-question” scenario mentioned here; Wright also takes a modified view on this, in Jesus and the Victory of God, 346.

32 Scholars sometimes label this literary compositional device “conflation,” which occurs “when an author combines elements from two or more events or people and narrates them as one.” See Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?, particularly 20 (see chap. 4, n. 43). Perhaps think of it this way: What happened in Matt 10 might be similar to our attending two different baseball games and attempting to provide some details later for friends. Maybe due to being rushed for time, when we retold two similar events, one from each game (such as two home runs where the outfielder barely missed the ball as it cleared the fence on both occasions), we lumped them into one ongoing account. We never misrepresented the facts at all, such as if we reported that both incidents happened in a single game when they did not do so, but we did tell the stories together because of their similarities.

33 For a few examples of those who take these approaches, see Albright and Mann, Matthew, 125; Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 324–25; Keener, Matthew, 199, 208; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 200; Bock and Simpson, Jesus the God-Man, 27; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 194; Mounce, Matthew, 95–96; Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus, 109; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 182; R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 103, 108; A. W. Argyle, The Gospel according to Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 81.

34 Bart Ehrman even makes a similar comment, speaking about Luke’s eschatology in New Testament, 119 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

35 Especially Ehrman, New Testament, 119–20; Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of Luke, trans. Geoffrey Buswell (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), 105; Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel, trans. James Boyce, Donald Juel, William Poehlmann, with Roy A. Harrisville (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969); cf. Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, 109 (see chap. 10, n. 20). More moderate and conservative scholars also hold that Luke historicized Mark’s texts. See Evans, Luke, 307–8, 310; Leaney, Gospel according to St. Luke, 166, 263; Tinsley, Gospel according to Luke, 185–86; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 87 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

36 This helps to solve an additional troublesome problem as well. Mark 13:30 (cf. Matt 24:34; Luke 21:32) records Jesus’s assertion that this “generation” (genea) will not pass until “all these things” (tauta panta) have occurred. There has been much discussion concerning this word genea, including that it also can be rendered as “race,” “people,” “age,” or other similar notions. This of course could be the case. After all, even the famous Greek scholar F. Wilbur Gingrich translated the term as “nation” in Mark 13:30. See Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 41. However, as noted by another Greek scholar, Friedrich Büchsel, genea is “mostly” translated as “generation,” though some of these other definitions are indicated in his volume too, both in the New Testament and elsewhere. Hence a bit of a problem could remain in Mark 13:32. See Friedrich Büchsel, “γενεά,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:662–65 (see chap. 7, n. 61). So there is indeed some room here for an alternate translation of genea in Mark 13:32, just as Gingrich renders it “nation.” But now, the point above concerning Luke’s historicizing of Mark makes the point much stronger. Luke, who knew Greek exceptionally well judging from the caliber of his grammar and his writing style as a whole, apparently gave no thought to employing the same word as Mark in 13:32 without changing it. How do we know that Luke was fine with the term? Well, Luke did not hesitate to use genea himself in 21:32! Moreover, unless it was due to simple inconsistency, historicizing Mark indicates that Luke was not at all troubled by the normal definition of genea. Hence, the implication here is that he probably preferred another of Gingrich’s or Büchsel’s options above.

37 Hurtado agrees, Mark, 139.

38 Even on the thesis supported by some scholars that Matthew and Luke were composed in the 60s, we would still have some serious problems here. These writings would be at (or very nearly at) the end of the generation to whom Jesus preached, without Jesus having returned (Matt 24:34; Luke 21:32). As the disciples began dying, it would seem these Gospel authors would be even more apprehensive about repeating such teachings. But worse, on the earlier date, why would Luke (as in 21:12–24) need to historicize Mark at all (see the next note) if the events in question had not even occurred yet? Then there would be a real conflict here between Luke not feeling any pressure from coming to the end of the generation, as indicated by 21:32, but still historicizing Jesus’s teachings anyway, and both in the very same text!

39 Even Gerd Lüdemann agrees with this interpretation of Acts 1:6–7; Early Christianity, 26.

40 Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 107–8 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

41 Pannenberg, 108.

42 Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, 154 (see chap. 15, n. 109).

43 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 462–63 (see chap. 1, n. 15). The quotation is on 462.

44 Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 190. Cf. also Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 143–45 (see chap. 4, n. 46); Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 463.

45 Wright, “Opening Statement,” 21 (see chap. 18, n. 1).

46 Crossan, “Opening Statement,” 27 (see chap. 10, n. 94).

47 One might wonder here why the message to Jerusalem should at least begin with Acts 2:14 or even earlier, rather than with 2:42.

48 Kenneth O. Gangel, Acts, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Holman Reference, 1998), 10.

49 If this total reflected the count of the men only, as Acts 4:4 reports after Peter’s next message, this initial number could have been much larger than 3,000.

50 David Gooding, True to the Faith: The Acts of the Apostles: Defining and Defending the Gospel (Coleraine, UK: Myrtlefield, 2013), 43–44.

51 Harris, Raised Immortal, 87.

52 Harris, 87–88.

53 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 109–13, 141, 172–73, 232–33, 251, 261–62; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855, cf. 864 (see chap. 1, n. 3); Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 87–98, 190 (see chap. 10, n. 17); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 165–67, 171 (see chap. 9, n. 12).

54 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 261; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

24

Noncanonical Christian Authors (AD 95–160)

Overlapping with the very end of the canonical New Testament period and extending into the second century, early Christian writers produced additional texts that provide very helpful historical information of various qualities and sorts. These writings often offer valuable insights into early Christian beliefs, chief doctrines, customs, and practices as well as various types of practical exhortation. Though many of these comments are brief, they still can be helpful on a couple of fronts.

The overall purpose of this chapter is twofold. Initially and more broadly, we are still continuing the discussion of ancient sources for Jesus’s life in terms of establishing his existence, particularly in response to those who doubt or deny it. Of course, Jesus’s historicity remains a prerequisite for any discussion of his death and possible resurrection, including this present study. Further, the latter topics regarding these purported events at the end of Jesus’s life remain the central focus of this entire study, and a number of the ancient texts that we will view in this chapter focus precisely on Jesus’s death and resurrection, which is hardly surprising since it is the central Christian message from the beginning.

Rather than looking at each mention of these reported historical events from Jesus’s life, we will view only the statements that seem to concentrate more selectively on an explicitly historical interest. Given this emphasis on the more historically oriented claims, our treatment of these ancient Christian sources will be comparatively brief despite the many writings from this time period.1 Beginning with the earliest of these writers, the apostolic fathers (dating from approximately AD 95–125),2 a few more historical texts from immediately after this earliest period will also be mentioned.

Historical Accounts?

Initially, some issues of historical value need to be addressed here. For starters, is there a particular point after which the materials from a general time period are no longer very useful in a study of ancient events such as Jesus, his death, and claimed appearances? In other words, when do reports reach a place where there are diminishing returns simply due to the time gap between event and report? On the one hand, it must be acknowledged that it is somewhat arbitrary to demarcate a parameter to serve as a hard historical terminus for admissible sources for an ancient study of a person or event, as if there were such a magical border beyond which historical sources are inadmissible.

Still, such boundaries are sometimes set anyway, at least implicitly. Ehrman employs the standard of 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, though he may have set this time so as to put his best foot forward in making his case for the historicity of Jesus when arguing against the Jesus mythicists.3 In another well-known study, Robert Van Voorst moves the line just a little further away from Jesus, concentrating on the contributions of seven ancient, non-Christian authors, the latest one being the philosopher Celsus.4 Scholars usually date Celsus’s writing On the True Doctrine to approximately AD 160 to 170, or 130 to 140 years after the crucifixion.5

In my own work on this subject, Justin Martyr has acted as a sort of historical boundary at about 130 years after the crucifixion, though like a number of other researchers,6 I give consideration to particular passages in the Jewish rabbinic texts, or elsewhere, due to the possibility of helpful hints that date later.7 Yet, even without a magical stopping point, it is clear that the further removed we are from the life of Jesus, the less valuable the sources are, at least in strictly historical terms.8 With the sources reviewed in this chapter, we are certainly nearing the end of that boundary.

Some initial questions concern the historical value of the information in this chapter. Are these reports simply religious proclamations, summaries of dearly and sincerely held beliefs, but nonetheless propaganda of some sort no matter how intensely they are believed? These questions could be extended. Or are there ways to check out the claims that are made in these accounts? If some scholars think that the Gospels, generally thought to have been written some forty to sixty-five years after the crucifixion, are near the end of the allowed distance between event and report, where does this leave these accounts?

One very helpful study here is that by Ehrman. Calling himself a non-Christian New Testament scholar who is “an agnostic with atheist leanings,”9 Ehrman provides more than a dozen independent sources for the historical fact of Jesus’s death by crucifixion. Dating each of the writings “within a century of Jesus’ death,” the list includes a number of secular and religious non-New Testament texts. These references include some figures treated in this chapter, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Papias.10

But it must be stated as carefully as possible that while Ehrman states clearly that the canonical writings contain the most valuable sources, this is definitely “not because ‘the Gospels say so’” but because they pass the appropriate tests for historical criteria.11 In other words, Ehrman, as a non-Christian, is very far from preferring the New Testament writings because they are somehow inspired, revealed, or otherwise occupy a special category. These texts are simply the best attested of the ancient historical materials on Jesus.

Nor is Bart Ehrman the only agnostic or non-Christian New Testament scholar to hold positions such as these. Maurice Casey12 and his former student James Crossley13 both speak positively of the historicity of the Gospel texts in terms of establishing key features of the early Christian message. These conclusions are in spite of their rejection of other Gospel passages.

One reason why some of the texts in this chapter are better situated than other ancient documents is that there is decent evidence that points strongly to some of our authors here having had earlier connections to the apostolic eyewitnesses. Some of these aspects are also pursued below. In short, particular authors were simply in the right time and place to have gained access to highly valuable information. Hopefully, these authors and texts will provide further insights that may support the historicity of Jesus in general and the gospel message of his deity, death, and resurrection in particular.

Sources Dated from AD 95 to 125

Clement of Rome

One of the most important of the non-New Testament documents is Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthian church known as 1 Clement. It is usually thought to be the earliest extracanonical Christian writing. Church historian Eusebius refers to Clement as the third bishop of Rome and the leading elder in that church.14 Clement is thought to have written 1 Clement about AD 95 or so to help end a dispute between church members and elders at Corinth.15 Koester notes, however, that while “well-attested ancient tradition” attributes the letter to Clement, along with there being good chronological hints to confirm the date of composition, there is still “no indication that Clement was the bishop of the Roman church.”16

Although 1 Clement is largely doctrinal and moral in nature, it contains at least one important historical reference to Jesus and earliest Christianity:

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. (1 Clem. 42)

In this particular passage, Clement of Rome actually employs several facts in tandem, composing an argument in the process. The gospel message had been delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, who was sent by God. With Jesus’s resurrection providing the assurance of the truthfulness of these teachings, the apostles were additionally confirmed by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. So the apostles spread the “glad tidings” of the kingdom gospel everywhere as their central message. Wherever the gospel was preached and local congregations were started, leaders were chosen to minister to those who had responded in faith.

This certification formed a chain of authority from God, to Jesus Christ, to the apostles, to the early Christian elders. Along this path, the resurrection encapsulated the basis and stimulus for the early doctrinal proclamation and church organization. So the resurrection anchored the entire process, evidencing the message of kingdom authority based on the Christian conviction that Jesus had truly been raised from the dead, thereby fueling their joy.

So it should be noted from this passage that for Clement, the combination was more than just the occurrence of a unique miraculous event, as special as that was in itself. Rather, the resurrection was of such a magnitude that it additionally incorporated worldview implications. Rather than a stand-alone marvel, the momentous nature of the occurrence in tandem with the way it was woven into the fabric of the overall system and message as the grounding evidence indicated the truth of the entire message.

For Clement, how could God have taken part in raising “the Lord Jesus Christ” unless the latter spoke the truth from the very center of the Christian gospel proclamation? Nothing else explains the outcome sufficiently. This interplay is indicated by the presence of terms such as fully assured, confirmed, with full assurance, and glad tidings. The authority standing behind the truth and preaching of the earliest Christian message was none other than God himself, manifested through the Lord Jesus Christ. It shouted to the world that the message was true in all of its glory!

Ignatius

As bishop of Antioch and another early church leader, Ignatius was condemned to die in Rome in the arena, destined to be torn by wild beasts. On the trip to his martyrdom, being watched by armed guards, he addressed seven brief letters to six churches in Asia Minor, plus an additional one to an individual (Polycarp). These letters were written not long after Clement of Rome penned 1 Clement, providing helpful early witnesses to Christian doctrine and assisting readers in understanding an important part of early church history and ecclesiastical hierarchy. Ignatius’s writings were composed between AD 107 and 115, more often than not being placed at the earlier end of these years.17

Ignatius’s epistles also include several references to the historical Jesus. One example is from his epistle To the Trallians, which states:

Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him. (Trall. 9)

Here Ignatius includes what appears to be a classical creedal statement, which may well have originated before the writing of this epistle, just as similar examples from decades earlier located in the New Testament. The hints here include the brief listing of crucial historical and theological beliefs centered in the gospel teaching of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which forms the center of most creeds.18 Ignatius’s passage even begins in a manner somewhat reminiscent of Rom 1:3–4. The doctrines are lined up in an orderly fashion that is somewhat reminiscent of the Apostles’ Creed. Further, the repeated use of the term truly provides some rhythmic flavor that may indicate a more easily memorized format.19

Some of these key creedal assertions include: (1) Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David and was (2) born of Mary. (3) As a true man, he really lived, ate, and drank while on the earth. (4) Jesus Christ was tortured, crucified, and died at the hands of Pontius Pilate. (5) Afterward God raised him from the dead, (6) as an example of the believer’s resurrection. As it was for Clement, Jesus’s resurrection is again the chief sign for believers, providing the foundation for their resurrection from the dead in like fashion.

In his epistle To the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius also includes two more theological comments regarding Jesus. The first instance opens the beginning chapter with the astounding words, “I give glory to Jesus Christ the God.” Then, sounding somewhat like the previous creedal statement above, Ignatius asserts concerning Jesus:

He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we—that is, of His most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His church. (Smyrn. 1)

After referring to Jesus as God,20 Ignatius affirms another set of contrasts: once again Jesus was physically of the race and lineage of David, and was also the Son of God according to God’s will. He was born of a virgin but was also baptized by John. He suffered later at the hands of Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, being nailed (crucified) in the flesh. Yet, afterwards, he was raised from the dead as a sign to all, especially to believers in the church, whether they were Jews or Gentiles.

In a second comment in the same epistle, Ignatius concentrates chiefly on Jesus’s resurrection:

For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without a body. And straitway [sic] they touched him and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He [both] ate with them and drank with them. (Smyrn. 3)

Here Ignatius affirms that, at his resurrection, Jesus was raised from the dead in the flesh. Afterward he appeared to Peter and the disciples and invited them to touch his physical body to prove that he was really present there with them rather than merely being a bodiless spirit or demon. While Luke does not comment on whether or not the disciples touched Jesus at this point (Luke 24:36–42), Ignatius clearly states that they touched Jesus and believed. Jesus then ate and drank with them. In a statement reminiscent of the satirist Lucian of Samosata, who later made a similar comment regarding Christians as a whole,21 Ignatius also comments that upon believing, the disciples despised death and were even superior to it.

Next to Clement in 1 Clem. 42, Ignatius in Smyrn. 3 may well present the most complete text in the apostolic fathers regarding the observation of the breadth of the gospel message as it extends from the person of Jesus Christ (four titles including “God” and “Son of God” in the immediate context), all the way through Jesus’s death and resurrection, to the believer’s entry into the kingdom of God and the afterlife. As we remarked earlier, there are efforts here to sum up the rudiments of the Christian worldview as we peer beyond the events themselves to the larger picture of what this all entails.

A last reference made by Ignatius concerning the historical Jesus is found in his epistle To the Magnesians:

Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope. (Magn. 11)

Here Ignatius assures his readers that they can with certainty be persuaded of the facts of Jesus’s birth as well as the central gospel proclamation regarding Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. The last events occurred while Pontius Pilate was governor, a position that Ignatius reports accurately.22

As in his other references of a historical nature, Ignatius attempts to place such events firmly in the realm of history. His purpose, at least partially, is to provide an answer to those who would question this historical element, such as the threat of an early, emerging form of Gnosticism, which often denied physical interpretations of events such as Jesus’s actual death by crucifixion or the bodily nature of his appearances.

In sum, each of the passages above reveal that Ignatius’s central focus is the nature of the gospel message of salvation. For instance, he tells in To the Philadelphians that the key to the dissemination of the gospel is “the advent of the Saviour, even our Lord Jesus Christ, and his passion and his resurrection” (Phld. 9). This message brings immortality “if ye believe through love.” One chapter earlier (Phld. 8), Ignatius states, “As for me, my charter is Jesus Christ, the inviolable charter is His cross and His death and His resurrection, and faith through Him.” Ignatius commands the audience of To the Ephesians to direct their faith and love toward Jesus Christ (referred to also in this context as the Son of Man, the Son of God, and Lord) in light of “His passion and resurrection” (Eph. 20).23

Polycarp

Written at about the same time or just shortly after Ignatius (who wrote one of his seven letters to Polycarp),24 Polycarp’s short letter to the Philippians does not really include any straightforward historical comments regarding Christianity. Yet, Polycarp mentions many times the gospel message of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, often citing passages from the New Testament that help to date the terminus ad quem for these canonical volumes.25

For example, like 1 Pet 1:3–9 before him, Polycarp holds that Jesus’s resurrection provides sufficient reason to actually rejoice during times of serious suffering and even martyrdom where Paul, Ignatius, and “the rest of the apostles” are singled out for praise for their keeping the faith until the very end (Phil. 1, cf. 8–9). The gospel message of the deity, death, and resurrection is singled out in no fewer than half the fourteen chapters in the Lightfoot edition of this epistle.26 In the process, Polycarp teaches a very high Christology where Jesus Christ occupies “a throne on His right hand” as well as, like Ignatius, referring to Jesus Christ as God (Phld. 2, 7). These references to the centrality of the gospel along with the practical application of the resurrection truth to such practical areas as serious suffering even unto death provide important indications as to how this message was still being applied in ways quite similar to and consistent with the New Testament books themselves, written just a few years beforehand.

Quadratus and Aristides

Not long after Ignatius and Polycarp wrote their epistles, two early Christian apologists wrote defenses of the Christian faith during the reign of Roman Emperor Hadrian (AD 117–138). Quadratus wrote to the emperor and answered charges against Christianity, being one of the first intellectuals who pursued a trend of composing apologies for the Roman leaders,27 to defend the faith against various criticisms. In this particular case, Eusebius refers to the non-Christian attacks as “malicious” efforts intended to “harass our brethren.” Eusebius adds that Quadratus’s writing could still be found among believers in his day, which was a couple of centuries later, and that these writings were sufficient to indicate both Quadratus’s intelligence and his Christian faith (Hist. eccl. 4.3).

Quadratus became the Bishop of Corinth after the martyrdom of Publius, like Papias before him. Unfortunately, Quadratus’s apology has been lost. The following text alone remains preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, written around AD 325:28

The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times. (Hist. eccl. 4.3)

Even this brief quotation from Quadratus’s apology reports several important items regarding Jesus’s miracles. He reported that the facticity of these events could be checked by interested persons, since they were done publicly. Different kinds of miracles occurred: while some people were healed of sicknesses, others were even raised from the dead. These miraculous events were witnessed by those who were present not only at the time they occurred, but afterward those who were actually healed “were always present. They remained living a long time,” even after Jesus “left the earth.” Quadratus then adds that “some of them have also lived to our own times” (Hist. eccl. 4.3, 23).

Quadratus’s last comment may raise a critical question or two. Perhaps Quadratus’s apology was actually written much earlier than commonly thought. But if the date is roughly correct, even if the living persons who were healed or raised by Jesus were very young children when the events occurred, by AD 125 they would be in the vicinity of some 100 years old—not impossible but difficult.

The second scholar who also wrote to Emperor Hadrian was Aristides, whose Apology was also penned around AD 125. Avery Dulles comments, “The most important Apologist before Justin is unquestionably the Athenian philosopher Aristides. . . . Notwithstanding its brevity, Aristides’ Apology deserves high respect for its clarity and firmness of argument.”29 Köester notes that the various versions of this work “exhibit considerable differences, causing substantial difficulties in any attempt at a detailed reconstruction of the original.” Yet, “the apologetic arguments are still clearly recognizable.”30

Somewhat reminiscent of both Romans 1 as well as Acts 17:16–34, Aristides’s work consists of seventeen rather short chapters and begins by treating indications of God’s existence and attributes from Nature (Apol. 1). Aristides then identifies “four races of men in this world,” on which his comments make up the majority of the volume. These races are the Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians (Apol. 2.36).31

While wiser than the barbarians, the Greeks have erred to a greater extent because “they have introduced many gods that are made.” This multiplication of gods and goddesses from the Greek pantheon includes Asclepius, Zeus, Dionysus, Herakles, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Tammuz, Rhea, Atys, Isis, and Osiris, along with others (Apol. 8.40–14.48). For Aristides, in every case where the god or goddess was in a major (often life-or-death) bind of some point, his repeated theme is that, every time, the hero was unable to save themselves or their loved one, so they were not gods.32

Aristides concludes the Greek cases:

The narratives about their gods are some of them myths, and some of them nature-poems. The hymns indeed and elegies are empty words and noise. But these nature-poems, even if they be made as they say, still those are not gods who do such things and suffer and endure such things. And those myths are shallow tales with no depth whatever in them. (Apol. 14)33

Concerning Jesus Christ, Aristides explains that
he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous. (Apol. 2)

From this brief passage we may gather the following reported information from Aristides regarding Jesus: though he was “the Son of God Most High,” he “came down from heaven” incarnated as a man, being born of a Hebrew virgin. Almost nothing of Jesus’s ministry is enumerated beyond his having twelve disciples. Rather (and strangely enough), Aristides then moves straight to Jesus’s death and burial without even mentioning the crucifixion at all. Nor does he mention any details of Jesus’s resurrection or the appearances, except to say that “he rose and ascended to heaven.” Though still with few particulars, we are told more about Jesus’s disciples preaching throughout the known world and the faith response that accompanied the message from listeners.

Yet, as brief as this central message was, Aristides was an influential example to those apologists who followed him in producing political and historical arguments for Christianity. Dulles comments, “After the 1st quarter of the 2nd century, however, apologetics became the most characteristic form of Christian writing.” This was due to the presence of four groups of people who came into contact with Christians: scientific converts who were entering the church with a need to provide reasons for their faith, philosophers who attacked the Christian message, Roman emperors and the ensuing though often spotty persecutions, and Jews who denounced Christians or tried to distance themselves from the newer beliefs.34

The two most common sorts of apologetic exercises were political efforts to defend Christianity in the hope of gaining tolerance and efforts to interest new converts, usually aimed at both pagans as well as Jews. The literary form of the arguments often followed those of previous Hellenistic philosophical dialogues. Quadratus and Aristides were among the earliest scholars to follow some of these patterns.35

Sources Dated from AD 126 to 160

Papias

If a survey were taken among scholars as to which lost writings from antiquity they would most wish to discover in a secret room in an old monastery, what might they respond? That probably depends on their area of research. If they were ancient historians, perhaps they would opt for the discovery of the early biographies of Alexander the Great. Or, perhaps the 75 percent of Roman historian Livy’s lost writings would be their choice for recovery, or the 50 percent of Roman historian Tacitus’s lost volumes. Another candidate might be the second-century philosopher Celsus’s critique of Christianity, On the True Doctrine.

For New Testament scholars, the most popular choice could very well be the now-lost five-volume Exposition of Oracles of the Lord written by Papias in the early second century,36 including especially the material from the Preface to the “Discourses” section (the term that Jerome uses as part of Papias’s title instead of the word “Oracles”).37 A number of Papias’s quotations or other references appear in other works, and even these are very valuable.

Huge amounts of discussion have been generated by how some key words in Papias should be interpreted. For instance, writing only a few decades later, Eusebius cites Irenaeus, who refers to Papias as “John’s hearer and the associate of Polycarp, an ancient writer.” Then Eusebius adds his own comment: “But Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, by no means asserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy apostles, but informs us that he received the doctrines of faith from their intimate friends” (Hist. eccl. 3.39). So the question is whether Papias claims to have heard the apostles directly, or was instead given information about the apostles from their close acquaintances.

Continuing this line of questioning, Eusebius then considers another passage from Papias where the latter reported getting his information on the teachings of the apostles Andrew, Peter, Phillip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, “or any other of the disciples of our Lord.” Papias then adds that he actually preferred “the living voice of those that are still surviving” over the written words in a text (Hist. eccl. 3.39).

Later in this same passage, Eusebius recounts the well-known comments made by Papias regarding the authorship and accuracy of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. According to Papias, Mark wrote his Gospel based on the teachings of Peter, which “he recorded . . . with great accuracy,” adding that “Mark has not erred in any thing.” On the other hand, Papias records that “Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect,” though this last comment on Matthew has long occasioned much head-scratching and many question marks from contemporary scholars, chiefly since the Greek-language canonical Matthew does not appear to have been a translation of a Hebrew document (Hist. eccl. 3.39).

Jerome cites the same passage from Papias, also listing it as being from the Preface, and then makes a famous distinction in Papias between John the apostle and a second John, called John the Elder. Jerome states that it was this Elder John who authored the last two Epistles of John (Vir. ill. 18). Irenaeus also calls Papias “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” and then follows by citing a different passage from Papias’s fourth book of the Exposition (Haer. 5.33.4).

Papias’s fragmented testimony is important for several reasons. Initially, he clearly refers to at least two of the written Gospels—Mark and Matthew. This is important because, while the writings of the apostolic fathers are saturated with Scripture citations that appear throughout the Gospels, no book title is mentioned with the exception of this fragment in Papias. While these early writers probably did refer to, or were at least aware of, the Gospel texts,38 it is a difficult question to be sure because many of the citations could have been taken from a list of sayings of Jesus or memorized teachings, or even drawn from note-taking during Jesus’s preaching as opposed to actually quoting a text.39

Further, however the question is settled as to whether Papias interviewed the original apostles firsthand or if he conversed with others who were close to them, it is important information that he imparts regarding the historical Jesus. Once again, these provocative situations cause one to imagine what other gems may have been included in these five lost volumes. Bauckham compares this passage in the Papias fragment to Luke’s well-known comment regarding his checking out eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1–4). Actually, Papias’s comment may even be considered to be stronger, due to his actually naming a string of eyewitnesses whom he either interviewed himself or about whom he gathered important information from others who knew them, most of whom were the Lord’s own apostles. Bauckham dates this data gathering by Papias to approximately AD 80–90.40

Epistle of Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas is sometimes referred to as “Pseudo-Barnabas” because the apostle by this name is almost assuredly not the author. But it should not be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas, a much later apocryphal composition. The text exhibits anti-legalistic overtones throughout and expresses strong opposition to Judaism. Its purpose and goal is to show that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament law, though in the process it often resorts to allegorical interpretations.

Dates for the composition of the Epistle of Barnabas have varied quite widely from the late first century to the mid-second century. Over 100 years ago, J. B. Lightfoot of Cambridge University set the date between AD 70 and 132. His reasons were that the epistle gives ample evidence of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, hence it must be at least a little later than that. However, had the author known about Emperor Hadrian’s devastation of Jerusalem in AD 132, he could hardly have failed to point out such a devastating argument in favor of his central thesis.41 Intriguingly, a commonly accepted date at present is still within Lightfoot’s range. While some highly critical scholars still prefer the end of the first century, others commonly move the date closer to about 130. But the 132 date still seems to be a forceful argument for many researchers as the terminus ad quem.42 As such, this writing would fall right on the edge of Ehrman’s marker of 100 years after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, and as such can serve as a good and useful source for the historical Jesus.43

In just one major passage, the Epistle of Barnabas relates several facts concerning the life of Jesus:

He Himself endured that He might destroy death and show forth the resurrection of the dead, for that He must needs be manifested in the flesh. . . . while He was on the earth, that having brought about the resurrection He will Himself exercise judgment. Yea and further, He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. . . . He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. . . . But He himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree. (Barn. 5)

Granted, some theological notions are combined here with historical language. But of course, that is how the Christians could make the most sense of Jesus’s ministry and teachings. The question is not so much whether theology is involved, but whether or not the theology follows from the data.

From this portion we note the report that Jesus became a man, destroyed death, and replaced it with the notion of resurrection, both for himself as well as for others, which will be followed by judgment. He preached and taught Israel, performed “so many wonders and miracles” and expressed great love for the people. Further, Jesus chose his apostles to continue the proclamation of his gospel message by calling sinners to repentance and salvation. In spite of being the Son of God, it was necessary for Jesus to suffer on a tree (i.e., crucifixion).

Justin Martyr

With the work of Platonic philosopher Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, early Christian scholarship entered a new dimension. There is a marked difference between the often characteristically devotional, practical, and even the doctrinal exhortations of the apostolic writings and the more sophisticated, philosophically apologetic works of Justin. At least three major writings emerged from his hand. The First Apology was written about AD 150 to Emperor Antonius Pius (reigning from AD 138–161). The Second Apology was written soon after the First Apology. Finally, his Dialogue with Trypho represents his most detailed and extensive work.

These writings reflect Justin’s personal philosophical pilgrimage as well as his own polemical interests, leading to his reputation as the major Christian apologist of the second century. Justin was martyred sometime between AD 163 and 167. Koester comments that Justin was “the first Christian writer to treat the gospels as historical records.”44

As Koester states additionally, “The beginnings of scholarly work are clearly visible here.” A rather sophisticated philosopher even before his conversion to Christianity, Justin clearly knew of the works of Matthew and Luke, and perhaps Mark as well, which he calls the “Gospels” or even the “Memoirs of the Apostles.” He was the first Christian scholar to understand the Gospels as historical documents, favoring their harmonization. His student Tatian carried out some of these thoughts in his own text on the harmony of all four Gospels, the well-known Diatessaron, written about 180.45

Still, for Dulles, Justin’s primary concern in both his First and Second Apology was “primarily concerned with winning civil toleration for Christians.” Justin was insistent that believers should not be condemned by their reputation alone, but “fair play” should prevail and careful investigation should determine that Christians do not challenge civic loyalty and are not guilty of the death penalty.46

Included in Justin’s works are a number of historical references to Jesus that indicate his own interests and research. In his First Apology, Justin refers to various aspects of Jesus’s life. Referring to Jesus’s birth, Justin notes that he was born of a virgin though his physical line of descent actually came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse (1 Apol. 47). Elsewhere, after citing the location of Jesus’s birth in the town of Bethlehem, Justin explains: “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea” (1 Apol. 34).47

These two references record several items surrounding Jesus’s birth. Justin reports that he was born of a virgin while nonetheless being a physical descendant of Jesse’s family from the tribe of Judah. His birthplace was the village of Bethlehem, located some thirty-five stadia (approximately five miles) from Jerusalem. The fact and location of Jesus’s birth could be verified by consulting the records of Cyrenius, the first procurator of Judea.

Justin Martyr also mentions Jesus’s public ministry and its official documentation of his message. His reference to the Acts of Pontius Pilate was discussed earlier in chapter 6 in this volume. There Justin proclaims that Jesus’s miracles of healing diseases and raising the dead could be evidenced from Pilate’s report (1 Apol. 48). Moreover, in answer to the question of whether Jesus performed his miracles by means of magic, a constant theme in the ancient Mediterranean world, Justin denies these charges and points to Jesus’s fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy as a vindication of his claims (1 Apol. 30).48

Justin refers frequently to Jesus’s death by crucifixion. On one occasion he speaks of Jesus as “Him who was crucified in Judea” (1 Apol. 32). In another reference to the Acts of Pontius Pilate, he declares that Jesus was nailed to the cross through his hands and feet, and that some of those present cast lots for his clothing (1 Apol. 35). Another brief reference states that: “Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven” (1 Apol. 46).

In a more extended reference to Jesus’s death and resurrection, Justin Martyr declares:

Accordingly, after he was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles. (1 Apol. 50)

In these four texts, Justin reports that Jesus was Lord, yet he was crucified by being nailed to the cross through his hands and feet, while his garments were taken from him and divided up. Those who knew him denied and abandoned him. Still, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to his followers, teaching them regarding the Old Testament prophecies that he fulfilled. Afterward, those who witnessed Jesus ascending into heaven were called apostles, believed in him, and responded by preaching everywhere.

Justin’s Second Apology carries on many of the same themes as his First Apology, chiefly that both old charges as well as some new ones against believers are unfounded and hence they are unworthy of punishment. Justin also points out that many conclusions correctly arrived at by non-Christian philosophers were the same conclusions that Christians had received from revelation. However, the philosophers erred by only having partial knowledge. Both Apologies also argue Justin’s famous theme that even many especially pre-Christian pagan philosophers were enlightened by the divine Logos, meaning they were Christians in some sense even though they did not know it.49

A major emphasis and recurring theme of Justin’s writings is his argument that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled only in Jesus. On the other hand, Justin’s exegetical school asserted that beliefs concerning the pagan gods, which they collected assiduously, were merely counterfeited imitations of the Old Testament predictions that actually applied to Jesus alone. To show this, it was argued, if properly handled (usually in allegorical terms), then the Old Testament references could only be fulfilled in Jesus. This was confirmed through the gospel sources.50

In his volume Dialogue with Trypho—usually thought to be either the second or third of Justin’s texts—he begins by relating the details of his own conversion from philosophy to Christianity. The theme of Old Testament prophecy plays a major role in this transformation.51 Throughout the rest of this lengthy writing, Justin attempts to show how these prophecies indicate that Jesus is the divine Messiah.52

Justin writes specifically for Jews here to convince them that Jesus is the Messiah. Trypho and his Jewish friends are his dialogue partners, and the discussion both begins and ends quite amicably.53 Throughout the dialogue, there are many references to the historical Jesus and to Old Testament texts that Justin thinks point to Jesus. A few of these should set the tone here.54

For instance, Justin opens Dial. 77 with Trypho’s request for the proof that Justin has been promising as he and his friends take particular Old Testament passages to be referring to persons other than Jesus. Then Justin responds: “And you cannot prove that such a thing ever happened to anyone among the Jews. But we are able to prove that it happened in the case of our Christ. For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land.”55 So the visit of the Arabian Magi to the baby Jesus, including their worshipping him after first stopping to see Herod, fits with Jesus better than with any Old Testament character.

Later, speaking of Psalm 22 (Psalm 21 of the Septuagint), Justin cites the text and then writes regarding Jesus’s crucifixion:

When they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot. (Dial. 97)56

Here Justin records several more events, such as Jesus being crucified and nailed through both his hands and feet. As in Justin’s First Apology, we also find a reference to Jesus’s clothes being gambled away by those who killed him. Then immediately afterwards, in the same chapter, Justin accuses Trypho rather strongly: “for you are in all respects blind”(!) for not recognizing that this is Jesus at his crucifixion, adding that this applies to no one but Jesus. However, the charge does not seem to bother Trypho.

Justin also notes, “When Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned from the memoirs” (Dial. 105).57 Then Justin adds in a rather convoluted comment:

He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. (Dial. 106)

Justin’s two references here highlight a few other seldom-mentioned features of the gospel tradition. These include items such that Jesus and his disciples “sang praises to God” together (after their last meal?), Jesus “giving up His spirit on the cross,” as well as the disciples repenting for their having abandoned Jesus during his trial and passion. Of course, Justin’s comments that Jesus reminded the apostles of the Old Testament prophecies on these matters is almost to be expected. Lastly, the mentions of the “memoirs” are also valuable in terms of their evidencing Justin’s knowledge of at least a couple of the actual Gospels.

Following Jesus’s death by crucifixion, Matthew reports that the Jews spread the story that Jesus’s disciples came and stole his dead body (Matt 28:11–15). Justin explains that this story was still being proclaimed elsewhere by the Jews:

Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again . . . yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that he rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. (Dial. 108; cf. 17)

This reference reports Jesus’s prediction that he would rise ahead of time,58 plus an exhortation by Jesus to the Jews to repent. However, Justin adds that even after Jesus rose from the dead, not only did the Jews not repent, but they spread the erroneous story that his disciples stole Jesus’s dead body from the tomb and then lied about the resurrection appearances. The disciples also taught that Jesus afterward ascended to heaven, which at least witnesses to the Christian belief in this event.

Lastly, Justin Martyr also refers to the facticity of the resurrection in another portion of his Dialogue with Trypho: “For indeed the Lord remained on the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again” (Dial. 97). Here Justin records that Jesus hung on a “tree” until evening,59 that he was then buried, and that he afterward rose from the dead on the third day.

Justin Martyr records many other events from the life of Jesus, but he reported that his data were gleaned from Scripture, especially the Gospels (e.g., Dial. 105–6). Without much question, these references suffice to provide numerous examples of Justin’s interest in historical aspects of Jesus’s life on earth.

Synopsis of Christian Sources

In this chapter we surveyed seven early Christian sources for the historicity of Jesus, all of which were extracanonical. In the next volume, early objections to the resurrection will be addressed. Our intent was not to examine all the passages that spoke of Jesus, but only those that claimed to report historical data. Additionally, we limited our discussion to the life of Jesus, thereby overlooking almost all of the comments from these authors pertaining to early Christian origins and teachings. A synopsis of this material provides the listing of numerous details.

The Life of Jesus

These ancient Christian sources taught that Jesus lived on earth in human history (Ignatius), after being born as a man (Barnabas, Justin). He was from the tribe of Judah (Aristides, Justin), from the family of Jesse (Justin) and the lineage of David (Ignatius). Jesus’s mother was Mary (Ignatius), who was a virgin (Ignatius, Aristides, Justin), and he was born in the city of Bethlehem (Justin). It is even reported that Bethlehem was located about five miles from Jerusalem and that his birth could be verified by the records of Cyrenius, the first procurator of Judea (Justin). Later, he was visited by Arabian Magi, who had first visited Herod (Justin).

Concerning his public ministry, these texts indicate that Jesus was baptized by John (Ignatius) and chose and trained apostles (Clement, Justin), of which there were twelve (Barnabas). He also performed reported miracles (Quadratus, Barnabas, Justin). More specifically, it was pointed out that these miracles consisted of people being both healed and raised from the dead, and it was said that some of the eyewitnesses of these events were still alive (Quadratus). It is also claimed that Pilate filed a report (i.e., the Acts of Pontius Pilate) with the officials at Rome that corroborated these details (Justin). Additionally, we are told often and repeatedly that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, thereby validating his claims (Justin). Some of these fulfillments had to do with the visit of the Magi and many details regarding the crucifixion (Justin).

Inseparable from their comments describing Jesus’s teachings in other areas or his actions, these seven early Christian postcanonical writers were also convinced that Jesus was more than a man. He “came down from heaven” (Aristides) and was incarnated as a man (Aristides, Barnabas). He was called Lord (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias excerpts, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin), the Son of God (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin), and Christ or Messiah (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias excerpts, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). In at least the very early case of Ignatius, Jesus was called “God” on many occasions, as detailed above.

The Teachings of Jesus

These sources also record some of Jesus’s important teachings. Jesus preached and taught the people of Israel, whom he loved (Barnabas). He exhorted the Jews and others to repent in light of judgment (Barnabas), yet they did not do so even after he rose from the dead, an event which Jesus had predicted ahead of time (Justin).

Jesus’s major teaching was the nature of the gospel message, which he received from God and imparted to his apostles (Clement, Barnabas). The apostles were fully assured of the message’s truthfulness, and they in turn preached the kingdom of God throughout various towns and countries (Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). Where this message went, it was accompanied by the founding and organizing of churches, complete with choosing leaders such as bishops and deacons (Clement).

The Death of Jesus

The early Christian writers were careful to point to the factual nature of Jesus’s death by crucifixion (Ignatius, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). They sought to link it firmly to history, such as the assertion that this event occurred during the governorship of Pontius Pilate and the reign of Herod (Ignatius). Details of the crucifixion are also provided, such as Jesus being nailed to the cross (Ignatius, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin) while his clothing was divided among his torturers (Justin). During his agony, he hung on the cross until evening and gave up his spirit to his Father (Justin), after which he was taken down and buried (Aristides, Justin). Jesus’s friends had forsaken and denied him, though they later repented of their actions (Justin).

The Resurrection of Jesus

These Christians were equally adamant in their belief that Jesus’s resurrection was also a fact of history (Clement, Ignatius, Aristides, Barnabas, Justin). This event occurred on the third day after Jesus’s crucifixion (Aristides) in spite of the Jewish claim that the disciples stole the body (Justin).

As evidence that he had been raised from the dead, Jesus appeared to Peter and the other disciples (Ignatius, Justin; cf. Aristides). During these encounters, Jesus allowed and even encouraged the disciples to touch his risen flesh, which they did (Ignatius). Jesus also ate and drank with his followers (Ignatius) and taught them concerning how he had fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Justin). Later, Jesus ascended to heaven (Aristides, Justin, cf. Quadratus).

These early Christian authors asserted that Jesus’s resurrection provided assurance that the gospel which he preached was ordained by God (Clement). This event was an example of the believer’s resurrection and was the reason why the disciples despised death (Ignatius).

Conclusion

From the outset in this chapter, we sought to address two issues: What value do these early extracanonical sources have in helping to reconstruct historically the life of Jesus? Do such Christian authors provide any exceptional or at least additional data on behalf of the death and resurrection of Jesus? Actually, there are both positive and negative considerations involved in such questions.

Positively, the Christian sources discussed in this chapter are all quite early. Clement wrote at the end of the first century, thus at approximately the same time as a few of the later canonical New Testament writings and perhaps even before a couple of them. Ignatius’s seven epistles date only about ten to fifteen years later, with Polycarp’s epistle To the Philippians coming at about the same time. These men were also said to be close to apostolic sources, as is evident from several different ancient testimonies (e.g., Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15–16). For example, although there is much discussion on this question, the comments regarding the authoritative nature of Papias’s fragmented material is praised by such ancient luminaries as Irenaeus, Jerome, and Eusebius,60 with each of these providing helpful comments.

On the issue of whether Papias heard some of these items directly from Jesus’s apostles themselves or received them from those who were very close to the apostles—as Eusebius calls them, the apostles’ “intimate friends”—Papias would still appear to be in great position to have garnered some wonderful data during these times. There are differences here, to be sure, but all the signs point to Papias being an exceptional resource for this crucial information.

Another positive factor is that some of these early authors were scholars or leaders in their own right. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias were all well-known bishops in the early church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15, 22; Jerome, Vir. ill. 18), while Justin was a rather distinguished philosopher before his conversion (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.16). Additionally, these writers were frequently careful to cite evidence for their assertions. Clement and Ignatius refer to the resurrection as the basis for Christian truth. Quadratus grounds Christian teaching by citing eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus’s miracles, including some of those who were healed and, as he claims, were still alive. Justin refers to miracles and fulfilled prophecy as evidence. So it is true that there are early sources here, that the authors held lofty positions in the early church, that there is some strong contemporary scholarly backup for particular points being raised as well as relevant evidence that provides crucial, ancient backdrop.

However, there are also some weaknesses in our usage of these texts. Initially, it is obvious that these writings rely on the New Testament for much of their primary data, as is specifically reported by Justin (e.g., Dial. 105–6) or in Papias’s fragments. That they do so is not necessarily a weakness in itself, for we have argued repeatedly and in various ways that the New Testament provides good historical sources, especially when only data are being used that are critically ascertained (what we have called the minimal facts method) or confirmed in other ways, such as through the application of scholarly criteria. However, one point here is that if many of these sources rely on the New Testament documents, then they are not totally extracanonical, and one of our questions concerns how many of the sources for Jesus’s life are independent, as well as how strong they are, to ascertain what sort of evidence is available.

It should also be remembered that the goal of these ancient Christian writers was not a critical investigation of history per se, but the reporting of Christian origins. While such is certainly a fair and worthwhile approach, and can yield historical facts, additional evidence could also strengthen the case.

Accordingly, some additional, corroborative data are at least partially available from the secular sources that have been overviewed here. Many of the reports help confirm the citations singled out here, especially with regard to the teachings and crucifixion of Jesus. There are also parallels concerning his life and the reports of his resurrection. Thus we continue to witness the ancient corroboration of Jesus’s story. As we have said, he is actually one of the most mentioned figures in the ancient world, even if most of the references are quite brief. As noted often, however, stronger data from even closer to the events in question are needed.

Notes

1 Thus, even some well-known works that are usually dated fairly early, such as the Shepard of Hermas, will not be included in this discussion, since it contains little that might be counted as historical information concerning Jesus and the early church. For the record, this work is usually dated to the early second century. For example, see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 551 (see chap. 4, n. 84); Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151 (see chap. 10, n. 20).

2 Citations from the apostolic fathers here are taken from the edition by J. B. Lightfoot, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (1891; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971).

3 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 56, 171, 290–91, cf. 140–41, 163 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

4 Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 19, 64–68 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

5 Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against Christians, trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), See “General Introduction,” 30. The original has apparently been lost, though Origen’s detailed answers allows a high percentage of the text to be reconstructed.

6 One example is Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, especially chaps. 4 and 6–10 (see chap. 6, n. 3).

7 Habermas, Historical Jesus, esp. chaps. 2, 9 (see chap. 3, n. 48). Like other commentators, I am also more critical of these later sources, particularly with regard to the time factor.

8 As a crucial note that I have mentioned in several other publications and lectures, it is exceedingly strange and even prejudiced that critical scholars can be extremely strict and narrow in their treatment of ancient Christian sources, such as referring to Mark as being late at just forty years after the crucifixion. However, it is frequently the case that the historical gaps between non-Christian religious founders and their earliest texts or between secular figures and their historical accountings are viewed very liberally by these same scholars. For a couple of examples on the religious side, when talking about Buddha, comments are made regularly such as “The Buddha taught . . .” without the slightest reference to the fact that the cited Buddhist teachings may come from documents dating from half a millennium after Buddha’s time! See Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, esp. 11–12, 34, comparing Christian with Buddhist sources (see chap. 4, n. 54). In another example, we are told that the four Gospels are “secondhand accounts” of Jesus’s teachings even at a maximum of sixty-five years later. Yet, in the very same text, the recording of Buddha’s teachings is dated at a minimum of three centuries after Buddha’s death. Then we are told on the same page that “Buddha taught . . .”; see David Levinson, Religion: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), comparing 38 and 28. Another instance on the secular side is provided by prominent scholar E. P. Sanders, who states, “The sources for Jesus are better . . . than those that deal with Alexander.” This is because the texts on Alexander come from “much later” writers. See Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 3 (see chap. 1, n. 44). Also on Alexander, see Roman historian Grant, Jesus, 200; cf. 247 (see chap. 1, n. 24). Why do we so seldom hear these things? Do we not notice the sometimes blatant double standard here? Christian sources have long been held to a much stricter code than those for any other religions. For many more examples and comparisons of dates between the major religious teachers and the earliest documents that contain their teachings, see Gary Habermas, “The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ among the Major World Religions,” June 13, 2017, http://www.garyhabermas.com/Evidence2/Habermas-Uniqueness-of-Jesus-Christ-2016.pdf. See also Kenneth R. Samples, God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017).

9 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 5, also 2.

10 Ehrman, esp. 290–91. Other helpful historical lists and comments by Ehrman include those on 50–68, 76–78, 92–93, 97, 130–32, 140–41, 163–64, 171–72, 262–63, 327–31.

11 Ehrman, 74–76.

12 Casey, Jesus, 49, 80–86, 90, 104, 108, 133–35 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

13 Bird and Crossley, How Did Christianity Begin?, 51, 53–54, 60, 74, 82 (see chap. 15, n. 33); Crossley, Date of Mark’s Gospel, 138, 140, 154, 208 (see chap. 4, n. 41).

14 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.15. It is often mentioned that Clement of Rome possibly could be the same individual mentioned by Paul in Phil 4:3b as his colaborer.

15 Ehrman, New Testament, 331, 418 (see chap. 4, n. 34); Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:145, 288 (see chap. 4, n. 47); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 548; Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 533 (see chap. 4, n. 51); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 25n4 (see chap. 2, n. 44); Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 343, 396 (see chap. 6, n. 81); Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151.

16 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:287–88. Ehrman also emphasizes the “concrete clues concerning the time of its writing”; see The New Testament, 417–18.

17 Ehrman, New Testament, 402, 415; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:57–59; Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 533; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 551; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 25n4; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151; Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 343, 396. Strangely enough and contrary to his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, Jesus mythicist Bob Price considers Ignatius’s epistles to be spurious! Price, Deconstructing Jesus, 27 (see excursus 2, n. 106)

18 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 10–12, 20–29, 43–60, 140–46 (see chap. 8, n. 70).

19 Similar features presumably persuaded Charles Talbert in this direction as well in “The Place of the Resurrection in the Theology of Luke,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 20.

20 On many occasions, Ignatius calls Jesus “God.” While some of the instances are clouded by matters of syntax or textual variants, many of these texts are straightforward, such as: Eph. 1, 7, 15, 17, 18, 19; Magn. 8; Rom. Introduction, 3, 7; Smyrn. 1; and Pol. 8. Some of the questionable instances, due to syntax or textual questions, include Trall. 7; Smyrn. 6, 10. At the same time, Jesus was also described as always being obedient to his Father, so there were some distinctions between Father and Son, to be sure, perhaps due to position or location: Magn. 7, 8, 13; Phld. 7; Smyrn. 8. Moreover, there is overlap between these texts, such as Jesus being referred to as God as well as being obedient to his Father, both in the same book. Also, there is a least one text from To the Smyrnaeans in all three of these categories. But even Rudolf Bultmann freely acknowledged that Ignatius called Jesus “God” so easily and on a good number of occasions “as if it were a thing to be taken for granted.” Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, esp. 1:129 (see chap. 4, n. 84). Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 29 (see chap. 21, n. 60), also singles out the comment by Ignatius in Eph. 7:2 as one involving a high view of the incarnation, including the words “God in man.”

21 Lucian, “Death of Peregrine,” 11–13 (see chap. 6, n. 118)

22 On the other hand, Roman historian Tacitus refers to Pilate as the procurator (Ann. 15.44) when in fact this was an inaccurate title. Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea, as accurately identified in Matt 27:2, 11, 14, 15, 27; 28:14; and here in Ign. Magn. 11. For more details on this matter, see Ehrman, New Testament, 196–97.

23 Similar themes from Ignatius are also mentioned in the Trall. Introduction; Magn. 9; and Smyrn. 2, 5, 6, 7, 12.

24 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:57–59; Ehrman, New Testament, 415; Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 533; Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 551; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 25n4, 292; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151; Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 411; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 18, 35.

25 An example comes in his very first chapter, where Polycarp quotes a text from 1 Pet 1:8, most likely indicating that the latter had been written before his time. Bauckham notes that Papias knew 1 Peter too; see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14. Perhaps reasons such as these provide good grounds as to why scholars such as Brown, Churches the Apostles Left Behind, 75 (see excursus 2, n. 113); and Ehrman, New Testament, 401, date 1 Peter, respectively, to AD 80–90 and to the end of the first century. Incidentally, Brown holds that the author of this epistle is “a Petrine disciple” (75) and reports that this is probably the majority view among recent scholars (26).

26 See Pol. Phil. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, cf. 5.

27 This practice of appealing to the Roman emperors was an intriguing counterpart to Pliny the Younger’s efforts from the “opposite” side, and from approximately the same time, to write his Letters for Emperor Trajan (r. 98–117) to justify his own interrogation of Christians, often ending with their death.

28 Avery Dulles agrees on this point in A History of Apologetics (New York: Corpus Instrumentorum, 1971), as does Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:340.

29 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 25.

30 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:341.

31 Aristides, The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, trans. from the Syriac by D. M. Kay. This website reports that Aristides’s Apology, mentioned in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History and others, was considered by many to be lost until the late nineteenth century, when an Armenian fragment was discovered. In 1889 the full Syriac translation was found. Some of the copies are shorter than others, depending on whether or not they were edited or how much was otherwise available. The reading is available on the Early Christian Writings website, accessed January 4, 2023, at https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html. Another version is available as being transcribed by Roger Pearse with the note that all material is in the public domain, available at “The Apology of Aristides,” 2004, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/aristides_05_trans.htm.

32 Aristides, Apol. 10.43–12.46. Interestingly in terms of this study, Aristides points out that Aphrodite went to Hades to ransom Adonis from Persephone, “the daughter of Hades,” but did not help him (11.44). It is noteworthy that no rescue from death is listed in the text.

33 Aristides, Apol. 14, in the D. M. Kay edition, Early Christian Writings site.

34 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 22–23.

35 Dulles, 23–25. For the larger context here, compare Dulles’s chapter 2 on “The Patristic Era.” Well before Dulles’s treatment, in April of 1958, F. F. Bruce delivered five lectures at Calvin College (titled the “Calvin Foundation Lectures”) that became the fine little volume The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). Bruce’s text reflects some similar concerns to those of Dulles, namely, how the gospel confronted four main audiences (devoting a chapter to each): Judaism, paganism, the Roman Empire, and “pseudo-Christianity” (the last subject mostly addressing legalism and Gnosticism). Bruce’s book is characterized by a large number of memorable quotations and thoughtful comments pertaining to our chief topic of Jesus’s resurrection (14–17, 38, 45–47), along with the closely related theme of the centrality of the Gospel message (15, 18, 30, 33–34, 44, 86, 101–3), other chief apologetic interests in the early church (14–15, 35), common ground (18, 35–47), the relation to early Christian persecution (61–68), legalism and other false teachings (71–74, 98), as well as lessons to be learned in contemporary apologetic endeavors (10–11, 15, 29, 47).

36 For an overview of these quotations and references located in one place, see “The Fragments of Papias,” in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, especially comments 3a, 14 by Irenaeus, comments 7–8 by Jerome, and comments 1–3 by Eusebius, all on 261–71.

37 For a few examples, Koester dates Papias at approximately AD 130; see Introduction to the New Testament, 2:3, cf. 168. Drane prefers 130–140 in Introducing the New Testament, 166, 181. Carson, Moo, and Morris state the recent scholarly preference for about 140, but they think that Papias could very well have written at approximately 115–120; see their Introduction to the New Testament, 67–68. Guthrie simply states that Papias wrote very soon after the apostles; see New Testament Introduction, 26. Having done quite a lot of research on Papias, Bauckham lists the most popular date as about 130, while noting that Papias most likely conducted these interviews regarding the apostles at about AD 80; see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 13–14, 18–21.

38 In a few places, these early writers did refer to the “Gospel” (singular) when quoting a text (as in 2 Clem. 8; Did. 8). Curiously, Papias similarly refers to the “Gospel” when citing Mark. Then, a few decades after Papias, harmonizations of either all three Synoptic Gospels or all four of the canonical Gospels began appearing in different languages, so there was a growing awareness of the four books themselves. See Ehrman, New Testament, 181; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:31–32, 343. As an aside, and though it is rare, when quoting Paul, the apostolic fathers refer a few times either to his letters in general (Ign. Eph. 12; Pol. Phil. 11) or, in the case of Clement of Rome, actually refer to a particular Pauline book by name (i.e., Corinthians; see 1 Clem. 47).

39 On these questions pertaining to the oral preservation of Jesus’s teachings or even note-taking, see especially Dunn, Jesus Remembered, particularly chaps. 7–9 (see chap. 1, n. 3).

40 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. 19–20.

41 See Lightfoot’s comment in “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 133–36. Although there are some similarities between Lightfoot’s argument here and the predominant critical tendency at present to date Luke a full decade or two after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, this is largely a different matter for more than one key reason. For one thing, it is held widely by scholars today that Luke does indeed indicate his knowledge of Jerusalem’s fall (as in Luke 21:20, 24). Further, a minority but influential view is that the earlier fall of Jerusalem is indeed enough reason to place the composition of this Gospel before that date, hence dating Luke quite early. On the other hand, as we have said, the Epistle of Barnabas’s key theme is the superiority of Jesus to the Old Testament law, and a second fall of the city nearer to the Epistle of Barnabas’s own time would be much more difficult for the author to ignore due to its absolutely devastating one-two buttressing punch to the Jewish system, which would confirm the major theme of the entire text. So, rather than being an argument from silence, this central theme of the epistle being what it is, is enough to date the Epistle of Barnabas before 132.

42 For a few examples, Koester prefers a date for the Epistle of Barnabas at the end of the first century in Introduction to the New Testament, 2:158, 277, as do the members of the Jesus Seminar in Acts of Jesus, 548. Quite differently, Ehrman opts for about AD 130 in New Testament, 384–88, as do Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 151.

43 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 290–91.

44 Köester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 342; Dulles, A History of Apologetics, 25–26; cf. the additional details in Ehrman, New Testament, 389–90, 407.

45 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 342–43.

46 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 25–26.

47 Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 34. Quotations from the writings of Justin Martyr are taken from volume 3 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (1885–1887; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).

48 For some specific examples of the messianic prophecies Justin used, see 1 Apol. 32–35.

49 Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 46: “We have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists.” On the odd notion of the view of Christ here, see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:343; cf. Dulles, History of Apologetics, 26. For a historical contrast of several positions at this time, including an apparent difference on Justin’s view, see Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 322–38.

50 Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:343–44. Intriguingly, Koester points out that Justin presupposed the truth of the Gospels rather than actually presenting arguments on their behalf (344).

51 See especially Justin Martyr, Dial. esp. 1–8.

52 Dulles, History of Apologetics, 26; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:343.

53 Justin Martyr, Dial. 1, 142.

54 Such Old Testament texts are utilized quite commonly throughout this dialogue, such as the claims that pagan stories actually emulate particular prophetic texts (as in Dial. 69, 70), that some passages have been adjusted to make the Old Testament case for Jesus seem less apparent (Dial. 70–73), that Jesus was the name of God used in Exodus 3 (Dial. 75), or that the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7 was Jesus (Dial. 74). Amazingly, the last example of the Son of Man is still an active discussion among scholars today!

55 Justin Martyr, Dial. 77. Note both Trypho’s and Justin’s emphases on the import of finding such strong evidence for their respective arguments.

56 Justin Martyr, Dial. 97; cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 35 for some similarities.

57 Justin Martyr, Dial. 105. On the term memoirs as Justin’s reference to the Gospels, see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 342.

58 Justin specifically refers to this prediction as “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (see Matt 12:38–40; also Matt 16:1–4; Luke 11:29–32). Interestingly, this text is a Q statement.

59 Justin refers to it as a “cross” in Dial. 108, for instance.

60 See discussion and references above.

Conclusion:
From the Disciples’ Experiences to REAL Appearances

As observed often throughout this study, virtually all critical scholars who address the issue indicate how rarely questioned it is that Jesus’s disciples had some sort of real experiences that made them absolutely sure that Jesus had appeared to them after his death, enough so to change their lives completely.1 Given this fact, the vast amount of space in these volumes is still committed to arguing for even more evidence on behalf of such views even though it is such an admittedly critical given. Why? This has been done because views change periodically; plus this recognition is the baseline premise that moves into the discussion in this chapter.

To illustrate this previous point, even Ehrman reminds us that without the proclamation of Jesus’s resurrection appearances and the subsequent faith response by the disciples, there would not have been any Christianity.2 Ehrman adds that he would hardly oppose the notion that the disciples thought they saw the risen Jesus. He affirmed this “with complete certainty” because “this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact.”3 Dale Allison goes further, asserting that even very critical New Testament scholars have long conceded the disciples’ experiences at least as far back as the famous mid-nineteenth-century German skeptic David Strauss and presumably even before that.4

These scholars are correct that there is actually a very long and honorable history of critical scholars who have agreed that key experiences of some sort actually occurred among Jesus’s disciples, followed by their major transformations. Nonetheless, a few brief responses should be made here to the question of the amount of attention in this study devoted to these events. It is truly well established in modern theology with different degrees of confidence that Jesus’s disciples had real experiences that they sincerely believed were resurrection appearances. This has been the case going at least back to Friedrich Schleiermacher’s role at the beginning of German liberalism and even well before that, to the beginning of higher criticism. Even the majority of atheist, agnostic, and self-identified non-Christian scholars today in relevant areas of study almost always concede this truth as well. So, if Ehrman, Allison, and almost all other critical scholars concede this, why devote this much discussion to establishing such a well-accepted point?

Though the critical scholarly agreement here is exceptionally strong, caveats appear from time to time. Some influential skeptical scholars of late have made passing references that would include at least some of these disciples, or to hint that the accounts were not reported immediately but only later, perhaps just a few years before the time of Paul’s writing, and so on. It occasionally seems as though these almost lone efforts attempt to drive just a slight bit of a wedge wherever and whenever possible to cause doubts. Although the overall case has grown more confidently optimistic in recent years, skeptical scholars have occasionally raised questions off the beaten paths.5

It often seems that when the evidence grows increasingly positive—especially when it closes in on more critical scholars and their views—many skeptics will either change or adjust their earlier allowances of the data that they previously reported as being established. This presumably leaves more room for unbelief. It almost seems as if anything else can change except their ultimate position against the resurrection, which must remain in place at all costs. Pannenberg once remarked revealingly regarding then-atheist philosopher Antony Flew’s denial of the resurrection that Flew had virtually admitted several times that if it were not Jesus’s resurrection that hung in the balances, he would have agreed readily with the strength of the historical case!6

One reason that could strengthen the case for the disciples’ experiences concerns the actual cause and nature of those experiences. Can it be known whether the disciples and other early believers were correct in their reports that they truly witnessed appearances of Jesus after he had been raised from the dead? Conversely, it can work the other way too. Can it be known that the disciples were in error here? In other words, in addition to the disciples’ utter convictions that they had seen the risen Jesus, can it be known whether they were mistaken? True, the disciples’ tireless commitment to communicating the message is remarkable, made even more so in that it was a belief in a unique resurrection teaching that motivated their commitment. But after all, the critics retort, experiential information has often been mistaken. Yet again, the disciples could have been correct as to the ultimate grounding of their convictions too.

However, perhaps both sides fail to proceed far enough. What else can be posed to answer the question of whether Jesus’s disciples actually saw him? This issue is precisely what is being addressed in this chapter to get to the heart of the matter. In light of the basic agreement regarding the disciples’ experiences, we need to push ahead to a legitimate and likely conclusion to these occurrences.

So, can the disciples’ complete and total convictions that they had witnessed appearances of the risen Jesus help in answering whether or not they had actually done so? Could they simply have been mistaken? Was Jesus really present before them? Are there some ways to narrow this gap significantly? Are there some helpful indications that may assist in breaking through and adjudicating this impasse in this chapter?

In volume 2 of this study, almost two dozen a priori philosophical and historical objections to miracles will be entertained and addressed in a tremendous amount of rather tedious detail. Additionally, many far lengthier chapters in the second volume are also devoted to treating a posteriori issues, chiefly consisting of individual naturalistic alternative theses that have been aimed at the resurrection down through the years.

Tabling for now the evaluations of these individual naturalistic theses that are considered in hundreds of details in the next volume, we will take up in the remainder of this chapter two major questions. Perhaps the two most prominent prior categorical challenges to the resurrection as mentioned by the critics will be addressed. The first question concerns a general belief regarding the naturalistic scenarios. More specifically, it is sometimes charged that virtually any of these alternative responses should be preferred over an actual resurrection, since the latter event involves a miraculous occurrence. This comment is based on a second, background objection that the supernatural realm either does not exist at all, as realized by a lack of evidence, or that it is at least highly unlikely to interfere with this world.

Both questions will only be addressed here generally, due to the hundreds of relevant pages that can be viewed in these volumes and elsewhere, where these issues will be divided into very narrow particulars over a wide range of hypotheses being singled out and treated separately within them. What can be stated regarding the first thought that any natural thesis is better than a supernatural one? The second issue concerning the very existence of another world also needs to be approached here briefly from more than one direction, though it must be understood that only hints along with brief comments will be made, since this subject has neither been argued nor solved in this text. Hence this will take us beyond the parameters of this volume. Some considerations will be introduced in the remainder of this discussion, with additional aspects being raised in later chapters in this study, unpacking many additional details.

The Present State of Naturalistic Responses to the Resurrection

It should be noted once again that the hundreds of individual particulars that are part of the alternative options to Jesus’s resurrection will be taken up in the entire second volume of this study. This is only mentioned briefly here to provide hints regarding some preliminary considerations to this question in light of the historical evidence that has been discussed in this volume.

This multivolume resurrection study may be the longest on this topic ever attempted. Likewise, the investigation and critique of these individual anti-miraculous options in the second volume (at nearly 1,000 pages) without much doubt has probably devoted far more space and details to evaluating the key natural alternative hypotheses to Jesus’s resurrection than has any other major study of the past.7 This page count obviously does not guarantee that all the natural options have been considered and eliminated, though potentially the most thorough effort has been made to do so. This nearly exhaustive survey of the major options has even included more than one variety of several of the single hypotheses. Numerous specific and multifaceted critiques regarding the naturalistic responses are found elsewhere throughout this present volume too.

Note that the refutations are almost always drawn from the minimal facts as well, hopefully making these rejections even more valuable in critical terms. However, it is also quite clearly the case that the longest treatments of particular subjects do not necessarily guarantee by the sheer number of pages alone that they are exemplary. That should be determined by others.

The upshot of such evaluations in recent decades, including from other researchers, is that the general scholarly sentiment has grown somewhat more opposed to these natural theses. The swing in this direction has been especially more noticeable in the last decade or two. It might be surmised that there should be plenty of critical scholars who would wish to embrace one of the the alternative views, perhaps even enthusiastically, if they were considered to be supported better by the data. But there appear to be fewer scholars at present who are embracing these options, apparently due to the strength of the contrary data.

Further and quite surprisingly, this change of direction may be observed in a number of distinguished critics at present who prefer not to embrace a single alternate thesis by itself, preferring a general “shotgun” approach that basically presents several alternatives where the critic can switch back and forth between the options if one or two become problematic in the aftermath of the ensuing discussion. Thus, the older one-thesis critics of the past appear to be dwindling severely in number. One way to observe and check this is to consider how many major, influential scholars in relevant fields in recent years have endorsed and defended a single naturalistic view of the resurrection and stuck with it come what may. Choosing just one alternative was more common in the previous couple of decades, but that approach seems to be disappearing somewhat at present.8

For example, Ehrman asserts in How Jesus Became God (164–65) that unbelievers “should not feel compelled to come up with an alternative explanation for why the tomb was empty.” Why add this last assertion? This sounds as if the critics are admitting a bit of a disadvantage here, similarly to someone who asserts, “You know that you don’t have to answer that question!” But wouldn’t a knock-out natural view or two be ventured or perhaps even asserted loudly at this point if such were available? If so, then not to respond with an alternative thesis, as Ehrman recommends, in itself appears to be a retreating move.

These considerations seem to hint, if not shout loudly, that the alternative critiques have fallen on tough times and for more than one reason. While a scholarly head count and similar considerations of course do not refute these natural options, a surer approach is that it is almost undeniable that the historical facts that are agreed upon even by quite critical scholars are very difficult for these natural views to explain well, as critics themselves admit.9

Another indication of this change is the large number of well-known critical scholars themselves who refute and even disparage these natural hypotheses, sometimes giving additional details that explain their reasons for doing so.10

In fact, it is occasionally commented that the number of critiques that can be leveled against each natural supposition even when utilizing only the data derived from a smaller number of critically endorsed facts of history basically amounts to overkill. Angus Menuge declared that “Habermas’ ‘minimal facts’ approach . . . does explain why, over time, one skeptical alternative after another to the historical fact of the resurrection has been abandoned, leaving critics with shrinking cover to hide.”11

Bart Ehrman’s stance on naturalistic resurrection options seems to have been redirected in recent years, given some of his latest comments on the possibilities. He has stated while addressing this subject, “I don’t subscribe to any of these alternative views.”12 This actually appears to confirm the sort of trend that has been addressed here because once again it may be assumed that a thesis would be chosen and defended if there were a viable candidate available. Natural theses have fallen on rough times of late,13 but they are still preferred by some scholars.14

Thus, times appear to have changed in this area. There does not seem to be much of a rush at present to embrace specific natural alternative views and stick with that option to explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus. That quite critical researchers have even produced various critiques of these natural options is another indication against these moves. These efforts have been minimized of late, perhaps out of deference to the recognized historical data that dispute each of these options.

When pitted against the evidenced and admittedly knowable historical facts regarding Jesus, even as recognized by very skeptical scholars, the present trend seems to indicate less than a positive climate for feasible alternative challenges to Jesus’s resurrection. This may well provide some strong hints so far, though without any as yet final confirmation that these hypotheses will fail. Since it centers precisely on these questions, the next volume should provide many robust indications and in-depth examinations of these options. But unless one or more viable natural options arise to challenge the resurrection, this would reveal a probable end for these suppositions.

Is There a Supernatural Realm?

This leads to the second major question mentioned above. In place of proposing a natural replacement option for the resurrection event,15 it is worth noting once again that Ehrman makes the additional move noted above. He responds: “As I’ve argued, any other scenario—no matter how unlikely—is more likely than the one in which a great miracle occurred.”16 Even one of Jesus’s own followers stealing Jesus’s dead body and then lying about it, as unlikely as that would be, is more likely than is an event where God raised Jesus from the dead, because such an occasion would involve God performing a non-researchable miracle.17 Specifying what he meant, he surmised that even an improbable natural event is more likely than a “Christian miracle” that involves God, “the power of God,” “the supernatural realm,” or “theological beliefs.”18

Ehrman is definitely not alone in this approach among his naturalistic peers, who often seem to rest the strength of their individual critiques of separate miracle claims on the assumed nonexistence of any supernatural sphere.19 Actually, this is one of the most common naturalistic retorts of late, as if to follow almost any natural suggestions whatsoever with statements like, “Besides, there is no reason to think that another world exists anyway.”

There are several powerful rejoinders to follow up this critical response, though in this chapter we will just briefly list a few directions that will need to await later discussions. It should be noted that while these considerations will be crucial pieces in formulating an overall worldview case later, they were not factors in showing that Jesus’s resurrection was a historical event. However, each of these avenues will be developed in detail in future portions of this study.

First, naturalistic and similar views such as those of Ehrman, Carrier, and Shapiro along with many others sometimes exhibit a startling lack of philosophical perspective and introspection. Why should their assumption of naturalism’s truth be allowed to stand solely because they have repeatedly asserted that this is so?20 Further, how can such a fideistic “foundation” then be allowed to judge all other worldviews, including those that are supported by arguments? This is simply a stunningly evasive maneuver. As I wrote in response to Shapiro’s volume:

His backdrop employs a highly slanted perspective throughout, one that seemingly assumes some version of naturalism, although without a speck of “proof” on its own behalf. Yet it is the measure of everything else, as an all-pervasive assumption. Shapiro’s table tilts downward from his own unproven world-view (which may well be unprovable altogether). But it remains seriously and alarmingly ubiquitous. Why should any unproven thesis act as a trump card? This background attitude seems like a thinly veiled disgust with anything regarding supernatural items or religious revelatory beliefs.21

For starters, can these critics demonstrate that naturalism is the proper underlying worldview perspective? Many philosophers (including non-Christians) have asserted that establishing the truth of naturalism by evidential arguments is a hopeless assignment, not to mention its most likely being a self-refuting perspective.22 In such a case, this approach to doubting the supernatural would itself be nullified. What is the underlying grounding for the ability to rule out God, miracles, the afterlife, or the supernatural world without a single evidential pronouncement? For several reasons then, naturalistic theories aimed at Jesus’s resurrection that begin here occupy exceptionally weak grounds, at least the large number that often tend to be illogical and fideistic, or that use their own unanchored positions to oppose well-evidenced views.

Second, few issues are more convuluted than that of pursuing arguments for God’s existence or formulating a theistic worldview. These matters arguably do not have to be solved before establishing the historical case for Jesus’s resurrection and will by no means be solved here. Still, several considerations will be presented, as mentioned earlier. For instance, if God hypothetically does exist, and especially if there are any arguments that could indicate this existence,23 then this could change dramatically the entire issue regarding Ehrman’s, Carrier’s, and Shapiro’s similar assertions about theological truths, God’s power, and so on. Reasons for God’s existence are also critiqued, but placing positive arguments on the table may well counter the naturalistic approach that often offers very little if any solid positive reasons for its own confirmation.24

Naturalists have even occasionally recognized the force of this approach. Owen surprisingly concedes outright that if the argument for God obtains, it could solve the miracles question in the affirmative.25 Even more stunningly due to his perhaps seeming to be the most dogmatic of the naturalists mentioned here regarding his opposition to miracles, Shapiro still conceded that “the existence of a god who wanted to resurrect Jesus would increase the probability of Jesus’s resurrection. Indeed, if that god were omnipotent, I would say it raises the probability of the resurrection to one.”26 While Shapiro goes on to state here that he is open to miracles, it is also clear that he does not think that either God or miracles obtain. Nonetheless, his hypothetical concession of a 1:1 ratio for the resurrection given the existence of an omnipotent God after his foregoing highly negative argument remains incredibly stunning. Again, this is a very involved and difficult subject, but it potentially leaves one or more doors ajar. Then how can the subject of God’s existence be largely ignored when the result could change the entire scenario?

Third, there exist several exceptionally powerful empirical arguments for the existence of some sort of realm beyond this present one and at least a minimal afterlife. To take just one of the options here, near-death experiences (NDEs) have opened a non-miraculous avenue in recent years that very few saw coming. For starters, NDE data have been presented in more than 100 peer-reviewed medical, psychological, and other reputable journals. Many millions of people claim to have experienced them.27 Documented cases of patients with neither measurable brain waves nor heartbeats have clearly reported rather incredible data during these times that were actually verified by others, both from their own vicinity as well as far away.28 Over 300 cases of highly evidenced NDEs have been reported, with many being catalogued as well.29

For our purposes here, a relevant benefit can be derived from the existence of the most highly evidenced NDE cases. These select examples may indicate the likelihood of another reality beyond this one, with the data pointing to the existence of the same metaphysical territory being addressed by Jesus’s resurrection—that of the afterlife. Thus, if the best NDE evidence argues strongly for at least a minimal notion of life after death, this could serve well as a bridge to another realm, making Jesus’s evidenced resurrection appearances even more likely.30 Granted, the mention of NDEs here is too brief and lacks too many important details.31 Still, we will return to this matter momentarily.

Fourth, since historical events are not self-interpreting, this means they never stand alone, and thus are incapable of revealing at least their ultimate significance in and of themselves. Rather, events must be interpreted within a specific context—more precisely, as part of a worldview. Drawing from a larger picture than the event alone is necessary, since such a framework helps to provide meaning for the occurrence in terms of its structure and perspective within overall reality. The additional information helps shape its significance and meaning.

This is the case with miracle claims as well. Unusual events are not catapulted to miraculous status simply by virtue of their oddness. David Basinger is one of several philosophers and theologians who have pointed out that particular and even intricate realities can exist that may be described as being a part of “an accepted divine action pattern” that surrounds occurrences, concepts, teachings, and so on in ways that may potentially illumine and explain these events and ideas to a greater extent than is manifest by these phenomena alone.32 Such an additional assemblage of information beyond the initial event itself may serve to identify it as a potential miraculous act that is linked with God. These circumstances surrounding events might constitute something approaching an intersecting pattern that further informs its meaning.

Basinger offers several instances of such occurrences that might happen, for example, in the presence of answered prayer, that may constitute just such “a recognized divine action pattern.”33 Circumstances may coalesce in various ways to fulfill such scenarios, such as answered prayer in conjunction with specific medical healings, especially in cases that occur in a precise, timely manner. The prayers could be in the form of individuals invoking God’s actions for healing or in other, nonmedical circumstances. Very difficult medical conditions could exist where positive results are specifically quite contrary to the expectations, especially when the results occur at the precise time when they are most required.34

In other scenarios, less acute medical conditions or even altogether nonmedical needs may be viewed. In these or other scenarios, especially if multiple such background confirmations are part of the overall study, the persons involved may be on decent grounds to conclude that there are enough quality considerations and attending data to recognize that God may have allowed a healing to occur.35 Basinger cautions that there may be “no epistemological certainty” that this is the case, but at least a personal conviction of God’s action may remain.36

In Jesus’s case, frequent descriptions of many extenuating events or circumstances before his resurrection might point to this occurrence being more than just some stand-alone, extraordinary event. In other words, a composite picture may work together here to establish the possibility or even the likelihood that what happened to Jesus involved more than his resurrection alone, as great a sign as that might have been in the first century. The reported healings by Jesus are largely accepted even by very critical specialists as well, as noted below and elsewhere in this volume.

In the case of the resurrection reports, there are other pointers that occurred beyond this singular event that many think could potentially serve as crucial indications of special knowledge or power. For example, it was reported that Jesus predicted this grand event before it occurred,37 which could have indicated that he was part of the overall plan of which he had previous knowledge. Moreover, many scholars think that Jesus made extraordinary claims about himself, such as those pertaining to his own deity and his being God’s specific path of salvation,38 which are other examples. As just mentioned, further background provided by Jesus’s physical healings that are even generally acknowledged by critical scholars to be historical occurrences,39 the quality of Jesus’s ethical teachings, and so on help to fill out even more of this overall picture. Each of these events was recorded in the earliest historical reports. They may be precisely the sorts of factors that need to be evaluated along with Jesus’s resurrection in concert with evaluative principles provided by the likes of Bayes’ Theorem and/or other evaluative tools.40

In sum, numerous scholars have amassed many considerations that this may be a theistic universe, although these were not argued in this volume. Their reasons have included the failure of naturalistic hypotheses to explain the resurrection as a natural event even according to many critical scholars themselves, as already mentioned;41 the overall weaknesses of philosophical naturalism as a whole, including its apparent inability to demonstrate its own views; the possibility of God’s existence; NDEs; and still other indications of a supernatural universe, such as present-day double-blind prayer tests, evidence of medical healing, plus indications that specifically involve a meaningful afterlife all weave a greater-than-necessary probable pattern of divine action. Moreover, other unique areas in the life of Jesus, such as his predictions of his death and resurrection, his personal claims to deity and his being the salvific path to eternal life, and his exceptional ethical teachings all build on the resurrection event and contribute to this overall nexus and pattern.

Going even further, that these are singular, unmatched emphases among the founders of the world’s major religions adds to the sense of Jesus’s overall uniqueness.42 Each of these areas coincides to point strongly to Jesus being a part of an overall picture that argues for more than a mere happenstance in Christian theism. This combination of data and application leads us to conclude that Jesus’s disciples actually did see him alive after his death by crucifixion. However, we have not concluded in this volume that the resurrection was a miracle. This was done purposely. The views of others have been expressed, and trends here and there have been mentioned. But we are not there yet because these considerations have not yet been argued and developed.

Thus, it should be carefully noted once again that the topics outlined in this section of the chapter were not part of the historical argument for Jesus’s resurrection that has been defended in this initial volume. Rather, these subjects were only mentioned here briefly, without strict argumentation or further elaboration, awaiting additional discussion and development in the ensuing volumes in this series.43

As for the chief argument in this context, we do not want to lose track of the immediate conclusion at this point. The theme at the close of this initial volume concerns the pathway to answering the decisive question by making a crucial move from the virtually unanimous critical view that after Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the disciples had real experiences that they thought were appearances of Jesus to the further conclusion that these followers did in fact truly witness the presence of the risen Jesus.

A Last Consideration

A final item should be added to the argument. Initially, Ehrman repeats the objection often that historians qua historians cannot investigate miracles, since such occurrences by definition would involve two different realms of knowing, namely, those of history and faith. If God raised Jesus from the dead, this supernatural action would be outside the sphere of historical research and thus not open to such investigation. As Ehrman states, “Historians have no access to the supernatural realm.”44

Ehrman of course does hold that there are many strong reasons to believe that Jesus died by crucifixion.45 In fact, the historian can even acknowledge that Jesus “was seen alive, bodily, afterward. A historian could, in theory, argue this point without appealing to divine causality—that is, without saying that God raised him from the dead.” Therefore, the line that the historian cannot cross is that seeing Jesus “alive, bodily, afterward” was something that happened because God worked a miracle in time and space. Apart from knowing that these events involved God’s miraculous intervention, then, this potential scenario of Jesus dying by crucifixion and then being seen alive and bodily afterward may be affirmed by historians.46

However, at the beginning of this volume, as well as a few times throughout this volume and elsewhere, I also posed very similar scenarios long before this that match quite closely Ehrman’s formulation here. This is a fair and worthwhile starting place. In other words, it has been mentioned often in this text that two rather straightforward questions are in view: Did Jesus die by crucifixion? And was Jesus actually seen again sometime later? These are ground-level theses that, as Ehrman notes, may be determined by the historian without introducing the question of miracles.47 From many years ago in my research, this served as a personal means of bracketing cognate questions like Ehrman’s by arguing that historians researching strictly within their field cannot answer the possibility of God’s existence, God’s potential actions in history, and thus the occurrence of real miracles caused by God. Then Ehrman’s two prior historical questions about Jesus’s death by crucifixion and his potentially being seen alive again bodily may be answered. This seems to be a fair reading of his words. And it was this view that I likewise defended as well.

Ehrman and other unbelieving scholars are correct that historians are within their range of academic competence to inquire about the historicity of Jesus’s death and whether he was seen later alive, apart from references to miracles such as God having raised him.48 It is clear to virtually all scholars, pro and con, both that Jesus died by crucifixion and that his followers had experiences that convinced them that he was seen again afterward. But this goes further yet—that historians who agree with the possibility mentioned by Ehrman may even affirm that Jesus was seen again later, walking and talking in a non-miraculous sense. It remains in the next volume to investigate the final issues involved as to whether specific alternative theses can explain these data in natural terms, though many comments have already been discussed in this volume.

It likewise should have been clear from the arguments over hundreds of pages throughout this first volume that there are many indications that Jesus was seen again after his death. However, any potentially miraculous side of the resurrection question was not even pursued in this volume.

A strong indication regarding this non-miraculous data needs to be considered in this context. Near-death experiences (NDEs) are not miracles. They require neither God’s existence nor his intervention. Neither do they argue for the truth of any particular religious persuasion; thus, they have been interpreted variously. NDEs are simply what has been repeatedly reported when people come close to dying.49 NDE studies are among the most clear-cut areas of investigation indicating that there is probably an afterlife of some sort, as supported by very strong empirical evidence.50 Therefore, such a conclusion should present a head start in answering our second question regarding whether Jesus was seen again after his death. If there is an afterlife, then the truth and existence of such a metaphysical category raises the odds further, particularly in light of the many evidences like those presented in this volume that Jesus was, in fact, seen alive after his death. In other words, since after-death phenomena are quite well evidenced,51 Jesus’s appearances would provide additional data for an afterlife. As such, they should be recognized by critical scholars, since they are also both well evidenced, occupy the same corroborated category of the afterlife, and can be evidenced apart from the miracles question.

Conclusion: From the Disciples’ Experiences to Really Having Seen Jesus

Scholars have worldviews and should be able to argue strongly for the truth of their own positions and assertions. Although naturalists have offered responses to theistic arguments and claims, as well as analyzing opposing critiques of several sorts, often quite briefly, these exercises still fail to indicate that the background perspective of naturalism itself is actually true.52 In other words, how does even potentially refuting theistic claims indicate either that God does not exist or that there is no afterlife?53 As already noted, a recurrent and sometimes quite popular response by recent atheists is that the term atheism only indicates the denial of belief in God, and no more. Other nontheists, such as Bertrand Russell in the footnote below, deny that any positive arguments showing naturalism to be true in fact could be provided.54

Perhaps even more amazing is the recent report that approximately one-third of atheists and agnostics now believe in an afterlife, which was one of Russell’s marks of Christian belief.55 But how does a naturalistic view or system produce or even allow for an afterlife? Naturalism seems to have fallen on rough grounds of late, as indicated voluntarily by such overhauls and challenges by its own adherents.

Against this background, a priori dismissals of Jesus being seen after his death (even if considered apart from miraculous intervention, as noted earlier) now look ever more clearly like unsupported assertions. Further, in a universe where an afterlife of some sort is not only quite likely (as per the impressive evidence for NDEs along with other considerations), as apparently admitted by a fair percentage of naturalists, denials of Jesus’s resurrection and an afterlife appear to be at a major disadvantage. That Jesus truly appeared to his followers after his death (again, apart from the question of miracles) should no longer even be an issue. Alternative theories to the resurrection in all probability seem to be less likely anyway, and I will argue in volume 2 of this series that this is more significantly the case. The actual evidence available establishes the resurrection and appearances of Jesus, as presented in this volume.56

Therefore, concluding this matter for now, the original two natural responses considered above are seriously mistaken. In brief, not only is the first assumption patently false, that any old natural theory works just fine. In fact, most likely, no natural hypotheses concerning Jesus’s resurrection fit the facts! The drop-off among critical scholars in this matter is an indication of this, especially when very few influential researchers of late are willing to choose just a single hypothesis and stick with it.

Second, no sufficiently well-evidenced naturalistic backdrop demands that we ignore either religious arguments or a reality beyond this one. Accordingly, numerous heavily evidenced empirical studies (including NDEs) indicate strongly that there is an afterlife, with the resurrection appearances being an integral part of this category on historical grounds alone (remembering that NDEs are not miracles). In short, one cannot assume the truth of naturalism as a basis for employing alternative theses; plus, the strong data for an afterlife further corroborate the reality that Jesus experienced. It has been commented by critics that the resurrection of Jesus is ad hoc, presumably because of there being no other realities except this one, without an afterlife.57 But strongly evidenced NDEs are just the sort of data that can provide a way through this impasse concerning both another reality plus the strong potential for an afterlife, as explained above. Hence, the details presented here provide several credible paths that establish the thesis that Jesus’s disciples actually witnessed literal appearances of the risen Jesus, even apart from consideration of the miracle question, as several critical scholars allow.

Notes

1 To repeat the earlier comment, Jesus’s central preaching of the kingdom of God, Jesus’s crucifixion, and the disciples’ experiences afterward are probably the three most clearly established historical facts during this time frame.

2 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 231–32 (see chap. 5, n. 43); Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 131–32, 147, 151 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

3 Ehrman, Apocalyptic Prophet, 229–32, with the two brief quotations on pages 230 and 231.

4 Allison, “Explaining the Resurrection,” esp. 125 (see chap. 4, n. 10).

5 An older example is that of New Testament scholar Norman Perrin, who, without being more specific, breaks with the scholarly ranks to date the proclamation of 1 Cor 15:3-7 to the 40s; see Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 79-83 (see chap. 5, n. 40). In contrast, from the same time as Perrin’s comment, Gerald O’Collins notes that while he holds to an early date for this creed, he knows of no commentator who dates this creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15 after the late 40s. See O’Collins, What Are They Saying about the Resurrection?, 112 (see chap. 4, n. 16). Much more recently, Reza Aslan dates the formula in 1 Cor 15:3–8 to the early 40s in Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Random House, 2013), 175. Granted, these cases are quite rare, as well as far outside the norm, and dates such as these have virtually disappeared in recent years.

6 See Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 134 (see chap. 10, n. 70).

7 My previous coauthored volume with Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, treated and critiqued both the major as well as several other, sometimes-wild speculations during well over 100 pages of entertaining and evaluating alternative suppositions. For examples of the really different sorts of suppositions that were entertained, we treated the possibility that Jesus was an extraterrestrial (including other related ideas), comparing Jesus’s appearances to the Mormon claims of the golden plates being observed, or even likening Jesus’s appearances to Elvis Presley sightings! (These last few options are found on pages 185–87.) Further, Licona’s superlative and lengthy treatment of these other views are found in his volume on this same subject, where he spent more than 200 pages on these alternative approaches. See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, most notably pages 465–610 besides additional discussions throughout (see chap. 2, n. 13). Honorable mention must go to James Orr’s excellent study, The Resurrection of Jesus (1908; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), especially with his detailed treatments of the hallucination, objective vision, and legend theses, among others.

8 If a natural route is supported in recent studies, it is often as a generalized combination of possible responses, as if the scholar does not desire to narrow the options to just a single view alone, leaving them with too little wiggle room in case their single thesis is either disproven rather thoroughly or shunned and perhaps castigated by the historical or other data that even their critical colleagues acknowledge. Two of the major single-theory adherents both passed away in 2021—Gerd Lüdemann and John Shelby Spong.

9 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 164, recalls from his own experience as a believer how Christians “typically have a field day” when they challenge unbelievers to produce a natural thesis against the resurrection, and then the believers frequently shoot down the resulting answer with multiple responses.

10 Examples of a mixed group of sometimes quite-critical scholars who criticize these natural hypotheses (in whole or in part, but often altogether), from approximately 1975 on, including primarily self-identified non-Christian or otherwise skeptical authors plus a few other very influential researchers include Vermes, Resurrection, 143–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14); Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, 120–26 (see chap. 6, n. 173). Despite raising many intriguing questions, Dale Allison also makes many astute observations against alternative theses in Resurrection of Jesus, esp. 346, 356 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 203, 207–8, 284–85, 334, 340 (see chap. 1, n. 30). Others include Cohn-Sherbok, “Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish View,” 199–200 (see chap. 17, n. 173); Crossan, “Dialogue,” 33–34, 38; and Crossan, “Appendix: Bodily-Resurrection Faith,” 177 (see chap. 10, n. 94 for both); Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 278–80 (see chap. 1, n. 44); Dunn, Jesus Remembered (see chap. 1, n. 3), 59, 63, 831–32, 838, 873–79; Brown, New Testament Christology, 163–66 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 27–28, 77, 80–81, 318, 686, 697–706, 709–10 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 123–25 (see chap. 1, n. 43); Wilckens, Resurrection, 117–19 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Macquarrie, “Keystone of Christian Faith,” 18–22 (see chap. 15, n. 28); O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 100–109 (see chap. 15, n. 28); Richard Swinburne, “Evidence for the Resurrection,” in The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 200–201; Francis Watson, “Historical Evidence,” 365–72 (see chap. 12, n. 34); Davis, Risen Indeed, 36 (see chap. 1, n. 16); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 61, 117–19, 122–24, 135 (see chap. 5, n. 49). A few pre-1975 scholars who have been quite influential during their time and since, and who are also critical of naturalistic resurrection theses include Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), esp. 2:155–56; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 185; Joachim Jeremias, “Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation,” in New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 302; Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 186, 198–200 (see chap. 17, n. 167); Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 88–97 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Brown, “Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,” 233 (see chap 6, n. 184); A. M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 111–12.

11 See his review of Debating Christian Theism by J. P. Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis in Philosophia Christi 16 (2014): 456. Steve Cowan contends that the minimal facts method presents responses to “a veritable encyclopedia of objections to the Christian belief in Jesus’s resurrection.” See his review of The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, in Philosophia Christi 9 (2007): 484; also, Kenneth Konyndyk, “Proving the Resurrection,” The Reformed Journal 39 (March 1989): 30.

12 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 165; cf. 186–87.

13 In volume 2 of this series as noted, virtually the entire text deals with the success or failure of naturalistic as well as other alternative theories. It might be wondered why so much detail must be spent on what may even be considered as excessive. However, giving a plethora of reasons against adverse ideas can be helpful for more than one reason. For example, not everyone is convinced by the same reasons. Further, others often need just a few extra arguments to finish the job. Plus, there are always those who do in fact hold the disputed views in question and require even more thorough convincing. As I argued several times in my PhD dissertation on the resurrection in 1976, yet another consideration is because “the more thorough such a refutation is, the more probable the resurrection becomes.” The reason here among more or less opposed views is that as the contrary likelihoods recede, the positive possibilities oftentimes increase. The immediate context indicates that the comment refers to the major naturalistic theories taken as a whole rather than to just one or two of the theses in particular, as pointed out by an explanation in the original (262–64). See Habermas, Risen Indeed, 262, emphasis in the original (see chap. 4, n. 1).

14 On some related and important issues, Ehrman notes that a historian qua historian cannot determine if God, particular theological beliefs, or “the supernatural realm” were involved in the case of a particular miracle-claim. The chief conclusion that a historian can determine is whether natural explanations can better explain the data that we know regarding the resurrection or if these alternatives themselves are mistaken; see Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 132–33, 143–51, for example. But also crucially, Ehrman emphasizes that historians are unable to determine that Jesus’s resurrection did not occur in history (132, 143).

15 So, if Ehrman thought a single alternative hypothesis were plausible, it is difficult to imagine that he would not have argued on its behalf. Further, this appears to provide at least a hint that Ehrman is familiar with the problems in each natural view, as he alludes to above.

16 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 173.

17 Ehrman, 165.

18 Ehrman, 147–48.

19 For example, very clear and similar comments are made by Richard Carrier, “The Plausibility of Theft,” 364 (see chap. 16, n. 71); Carrier, “The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” 470 (see chap. 16, n. 15), where the problem for Christians is in “resorting to a supernatural explanation” since there is “no good evidence that any form of supernaturalism is true.” Another recent effort devoted chiefly to this sort of response is philosopher Larry Shapiro’s text, The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 25, 29–31, 48–49, 55–57, 71, 73, 77–78, 84, 133, 142, 157. Making some similar comments to Shapiro on denying the historicity of miracles is David Owen, “Hume versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities,” Philosophical Quarterly 37 (1987): 187–202, also reprinted in Richard Swinburne, ed., Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 115–32. While Davis definitely eschews this option, he lists these denials of another realm as a common naturalistic comeback; see Habermas, Risen Indeed, 171. For a detailed critique of Shapiro’s volume, see Gary R. Habermas, “A Recent Attempt to Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus and Supernatural Beliefs,” 191–97 (see chap. 10, n. 75).

20 A very popular move that many (often more radical) naturalists have increasingly made in the past few decades is to assert that they do not have to make the case that their worldview is true, because all they are doing is objecting to theism and simply saying that they are not theists! In other words, many of these naturalists assert that they have discharged their epistemic duties by attempting to give reasons against theism, miracles, an afterlife, and so on, but without arguing (or perhaps without even recognizing) the influence of their assumptions which stand behind their objections! But especially in the case of these atheists, not to give arguments in favor of their own atheistic stance per se has the effect of not defending their chief (worldview) reasons as to why they reject the supernatural and the miraculous in the first place. We will not linger on this highly objectionable maneuver here, which is gaining in popularity (but not in philosophical acumen), except to say that it appears that this move is designed specifically to do at least a couple of things. For starters, with this maneuver the naturalists strive to place virtually the entire argumentative burden upon theists while owning no such duty themselves. However, making critiques of this nature clearly derives from presuppositions (in this example, very opinionated ones) that emanate from their own worldview perspectives, therefore requiring a defense. So, they are clearly stating worldviews while failing to evidence them, whether or not they realize it. Further, it is perhaps also the case that these critics may realize full well that their naturalistic worldview cannot be proven by good arguments, so what is left is to attempt to tip the scales in their favor from the outset, hoping that their strategy is not discovered or recognized. For several of the many rejoinders that are available in such egregious cases of poor philosophical thinking, including reversing the naturalists’ own argument against themselves, see philosopher Paul Chamberlain’s work, Why People Stop Believing (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2018), particularly chap. 6, “The Changing Face of Atheism,” where many of the examples are taken from actual debate situations. Among other retorts, Chamberlain points out that more classical, philosophically trained naturalists such as Bertrand Russell and Kai Nielson objected to these more recent maneuvers by their colleagues (61-62, 65-68)!

21 Habermas, “A Recent Attempt to Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus and Supernatural Beliefs,” 192.

22 For starters, see philosophers Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), who charge among other critiques that “strict naturalism is self-defeating (self-refuting). . . . Any argument for strict naturalism entails the falsity of strict naturalism” (119; cf. 117–22). Philosopher J. P. Moreland argues many similar points in Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), esp. chap. 4, as does yet another philosopher, Stephen Parrish, Atheism? A Critical Analysis (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019), 39–44.

23 For arguments on essentially all sides of the subject, see W. David Beck, Does God Exist? A History of Answers to the Question (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2021). Regarding a classical defense of God’s existence, see Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 2004). A more recent treatment is by Jerry Walls and Trent Dougherty, Two Dozen (or So) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

24 Moreover, entirely different routes altogether might be taken to the possible occurrence of events like Jesus’s resurrection.

25 Owen, “Hume versus Price,” Miracles, 131–32.

26 Shapiro, The Miracle Myth, 84, in the context of 84–86. When Antony Flew was still probably the world’s most celebrated atheist philosopher, he made a few similar comments. See Habermas and Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, 3, 49–50, cf. 173–75 (see chap. 1, n. 68).

27 John Hagan, ed., The Science of Near-Death Experiences (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2017), 4.

28 Titus Rivas, Anny Dirven, and Rudolf H. Smit, The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences, ed. Janice Miner Holder, trans. Wanda J. Boeke (Durham, NC: IANDS, 2016) cites the accounts of over 100 evidenced NDEs that were substantiated by the testimonies of others.

29 For details, see Gary R. Habermas, “Evidential Near-Death Evidences,” in The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism, ed. Jonathan J. Loose, Angus J. L. Menuge, and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2018), 227–46; Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), esp. chaps. 7–9; cf. Habermas, “A Recent Attempt to Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus and Supernatural Beliefs,” 194. For many other significant details here, see the appendix in this volume by Habermas, plus especially the Rivas, Dirven, and Smit volume The Self Does Not Die, esp. chaps. 1–3; Janice Miner Holden, “Veridical Perceptions in Near-Death Perceptions,” in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation, ed. Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, and Debbie James (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2009), 185–212; Hagan, The Science of Near-Death Experiences, particularly the introduction plus chapters 4, 7, and 8.

30 Intriguingly, NDEs quite often point clearly to another reality beyond this one. In literally thousands of ND cases, some of which are heavily evidenced, the ND individual regularly and repeatedly reports watching living family members and medical personnel, calling out and asking them variously not to grieve, to stop beating on their chests, or explaining that they simply wish to be left alone so that they may be free to explore the new reality that they have already observed. But there are never any responses from among the living individuals stationed in the area because although the ND persons can watch and hear them, sometimes repeating the conversations below them in minute detail, the NDEr cannot be seen or heard by anyone; they are totally ignored. This phenomenon strongly suggests that they are located in some other realm at least in some sense, especially in those cases where exceptionally accurate information is given even while their hearts and brains may measurably be nonfunctioning at that time.

31 See the appendix in this volume that presents many summarized, quite evidential NDE cases.

32 Basinger, “Christian Theism and the Concept of Miracle,” 142–49, quotation on 142 (see chap. 7, n. 18).

33 Basinger, 143.

34 Double-blind prayer studies performed under select conditions have provided some potentially intriguing instances. For two examples published in peer-reviewed medical journals, see Harris et al., “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit,” 2273–78 (see chap. 8, n. 84); and Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” 826–29 (see chap. 8, n. 83). Also, for a number of carefully documented cases including several medical photographs, see H. Richard Casdorph, The Miracles (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1976), where specific cases are described.

35 Cf. also the fascinating controlled studies by Candy Gunther Brown, Testing Prayer (see chap. 8, n. 14), including two recommendations from two Harvard Medical School professors, one current and one former. Cf. also Rex Gardner, Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1986), with examples provided throughout. Note that there is overlap in the cases described in this and the previous footnote.

36 In this and other similarly worded comments in this chapter, it is not being concluded that a miracle actually occurred. As Basinger states clearly, such a “personal conviction” may be drawn by the person to whom these things occurred. Basinger, “Christian Theism and the Concept of Miracle,” 148–49. Notice Basinger’s carefully nuanced conditions on pages 143–45 as well.

37 See Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302, for an excellent treatment of Jesus’s predictions of his fate, pro and con. After his critical evaluation, Licona concludes that these predictions came to pass. Additionally, from his historical evaluation, Licona thinks that Jesus’s projections indeed “supercharged” the resurrection event (301). Licona’s research on these predictions was also published as “Did Jesus Predict His Death and Vindication/Resurrection?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8 (2010): 47–66.

38 This and other relevant subjects are among the many that are discussed, evidenced, and evaluated in detail in volume 4 of this study, complete with numerous attesting considerations in accordance with critical principles.

39 As noted by Harold Remus, Jesus as Healer, Understanding Jesus Today, ed. Howard Clark Kee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. 106–18; Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 15, 47, 65–67, 70–71, particularly 59–61 (see chap. 2, n. 32). Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:507–1038; Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, as well as in many other critical studies.

40 See especially Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate, with key arguments in chapters 5–8 and 13 (see chap. 7, n. 18); also, McGrew and McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles,” 641–44, 658–59 (see chap. 12, n. 48).

41 Including any upcoming and lengthy substantiation of these comments in volume 2 of this series.

42 On this last argument, see just a few of the following comparative studies: Anderson, Christianity and World Religions, primarily chaps. 2–3 (see chap. 8, n. 14); Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths, especially the summary and conclusions on 224–34 (see chap. 8, n. 102); Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus, chap. 8 (see excursus 2, n. 123); Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012); Gwynne, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, 6, 18, 127–31, 239–44 (see chap. 6, n. 187); Habermas, “The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ among the Major World Religions.”

43 For details as well as further hints, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, esp. chap. 3; also Habermas and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “The Historical Uniqueness of Jesus Christ among the Founders of the World’s Major Religions,” Christian Research Journal 41 (2018), 40–45.

44 The examples include Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 132–33, 143–51, 165, 172–73, 203–4; quotation on 148. Intriguingly, my own published comments and lectures have come close to agreeing with Ehrman’s stance here regarding the historian’s ability (as historian) to draw further conclusions, albeit with several crucial caveats.

45 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 74, 163–64, 173, 290–91, 327–31, cf. 156–58.

46 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 149; cf. 143.

47 Even going back decades, this has been one of the chief ways that I preferred to frame the opening questions, due to answering similar issues to those raised by Ehrman regarding the range of the historian’s research, with perhaps only a few less substantial differences between us.

48 Besides Ehrman, numerous other atheist, agnostic, and non-Christian researchers in relevant disciplines have also pursued a similar approach, carrying out their own investigation of these resurrection questions. Examples include Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (see chap. 6, n. 173); Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (chap 1, n. 42); Elliott, “The First Easter” (see excursus 2, n. 111); Vermes, The Resurrection; Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus (see chap. 6, n. 173).

49 In this respect they are much like arguments for intelligent design, or fine-tuning, which have also been adapted by different religious adherents.

50 Again, see appendix 1 in this volume, which presents many evidential considerations regarding five different categories of NDE data.

51 For another example of a few nonmiraculous areas of corroboration of an afterlife, see J. Steve Miller, Deathbed Experiences as Evidence for the Afterlife, vol. 1 (Acworth, GA: Wisdom Creek, 2021).

52 Of course, the best-known philosophical argument offered against theism is the problem of evil. But these interactions, even if taken strictly from among the most influential naturalistic philosophers themselves, include a variety of significant disagreements among them regarding the strength and application of the arguments from evil, leading to impasses of one sort or another in the conclusions. Some think the argument likely disproves theism, as argued in Paul Draper, “The Problem of Evil,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, ed. Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), chap. 15; and Draper, “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists,” Noûs 23 (1989): 331–50. Before Draper, J. L. Mackie utilized another version of the argument in his volume The Miracle of Theism, particularly 172–76 (see chap. 1, n. 68). Yet Mackie concluded that “we cannot, indeed, take the problem of evil as a conclusive disproof of traditional theism, because, as we have seen, there is some flexibility in its doctrines” (176). Another atheist, William Rowe, rejected Mackie’s original deductive argument, going so far as to call himself a “friendly atheist” because he concluded that “some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979): 335–41, quotation on 340. Much more recently, leading nontheist philosopher Graham Oppy argued against theses such as those by Draper, Mackie, Rowe, and other atheists. “The Evidential Problem of Evil,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Oppy thinks the philosophical arguments both for and against God’s existence are, on all sides, inconclusive in the end, especially from the perspective of neither side changing minds across the aisle. Arguments against Gods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), xv, plus sections 1.2, 8.3. William Lane Craig responded to these ideas on several grounds in “Arguing Successfully about God: A Review Essay of Graham Oppy’s Arguing about Gods,” Philosophia Christi 10 (2008): 435–42, and also in Craig’s upcoming volume, Systematic Philosophical Theology, vol. 2, “Excursus on Natural Theology: The Problem of Evil and Suffering” (forthcoming.Thanks are due to Bill Craig for highlighting some of these sources and ideas here on the problem of evil). Greg Ganssle also responded well to Oppy on a topic that is closer to some of the critiques being raised at the end of this chapter. See Ganssle, review of The Best Argument against God by Graham Oppy, Philosophia Christi 18 (2016): 503–6. For many, perhaps even the best response to these issues was written by Alvin Plantinga in God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). Plantinga holds that the bottom line regarding the problem of evil’s force for the theist “is not that his beliefs are logically or probabilistically incompatible” (63). The remaining issues are more often of a personal, pastoral nature. Thus, Plantinga declared that the “Free Will Defense . . . solves the main philosophical problem of evil” (64).

The specific topic addressed in this footnote concerns opposing viewpoints where even influential naturalistic philosophers frequently have opposed their own colleagues’ viewpoints on whether and to what extent the argument from evil demonstrates naturalism and/or disproves theism. As mentioned, evil admittedly remains a serious problem, actually for all positions. But evil is not necessarily thought even by some of the major naturalists above to verify naturalism. Further, many scholars do not think that evil refutes theism. Some theists have adjusted their views of God as a result, and others like Plantinga have made additional moves to answer the issues. Naturalists like Mackie and Rowe have pointed out that theists are within their epistemic rights to make moves like these. Evil neither proves naturalism nor disproves theism; too many other options are available. So for a variety of reasons, the problem of demonstrating the truth of naturalism remains a problem for naturalists.

53 An example of the classic approach where anti-theistic arguments are lined up and made is found in Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, Routledge Classics (Oxon, UKL: Routledge, 1996), esp. essays 1 and 3, with the theistic critiques in the chief essay occupying just a few pages depending on the version. Yet even here, attempting to dismantle several arguments for theism quite briefly is not the same as showing that neither God nor an afterlife exist. Russell realized this as well, for when asked about God’s existence, he stated, “I don’t think it’s certain that there is no such thing. . . . I can’t prove they don’t [exist].” Russell, Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind (New York: Avon, 1960), 20.

54 See Paul Chamberlain, “The Changing Face of Atheism,” in Why People Stop Believing, 60–72.

55 This is reported by Michael Shermer, the atheist scientific author and the editor of Skeptic magazine. See Shermer, Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia, repr. ed. (New York: St. Martin’s, 2019), 2–3. Moreover, 6 percent of these atheists and agnostics even affirm bodily resurrection!

56 Mentioned at various times throughout this text, some scholars hold that while Jesus definitely rose from the dead and appeared to others, he did so in less than a fully bodily sense. The specific views vary. The initial item to note carefully here is that these are pro-resurrection appearance views and sometimes still involve Jesus having had some sort of a resurrection body. In fact, some very conservative Christians even hold that this is like Paul’s conversion experience, when he actually saw the risen Jesus, as contrasted with Jesus’s earlier appearances. Quite influential, scholarly versions of this view include Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Rupert, 1962); Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1980); and Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (1977). A critique of this view is treated in a chapter in volume 2 of this study. Each of these three scholars, for example, affirms that Jesus did rise from the dead.

57 An example is C. Behan McCullagh, “The Resurrection of Jesus: Explanation or Interpretation?,” Southeastern Theological Review 3 (Summer 2012): 47.

Appendix 1

Evidential Near-Death Experiences

Arguably the most insightful dialogue on the possibility of veridical NDE cases occurred from 2007 to 2008 over four full issues of the peer-reviewed Journal of Near-Death Studies.1 A vigorous debate took place largely between a skeptical philosopher Keith Augustine (who specialized in NDEs), and several distinguished NDE scholars. In these spirited discussions, Augustine proposed many specific challenges aimed especially at the evidential NDE reports. Augustine’s respondents usually addressed his challenges in areas where they were the lead investigators. In this rigorous investigation of claimed NDE corroboration, Augustine provided both the chief essay plus the final rejoinder in each of the first three issues.2

In his lead installment of three major articles, Augustine questioned several well-known NDE episodes, such as Kimberly Clark Sharp’s tennis shoe case reportedly observed on the roof of a Seattle-area hospital, Pam Reynolds’s brain surgery, and NDE reports among blind persons. He also provided a brief overview of prospective experiments which attempted to ascertain whether NDErs were able to identify random visual targets placed high overhead.3

Augustine’s second main article examined numerous cases of false perception in NDE accounts, including discrepancies with the physical world, encounters with living persons that never occurred, imagery like mythological creatures or fictional characters, and so on. He argued that these sorts of perceptions are much more compatible with hallucinations.4

In the last of his main essays, Augustine argued that other ND features like psychophysiological and cultural correlates suggested that NDE imagery is solely the product of an individual’s mind rather than a supernatural reality. Throughout, Augustine argued against NDEs operating either beyond or independently of the human brain.5

Augustine also allowed that the most impressive species of NDE data would probably be more indicative of an afterlife thesis than that of his hallucinatory hypotheses, if they could stand up to scrutiny. For instance, citing positively the work of Michael Potts, Augustine postulated that the following would be among the most helpful in establishing an otherworldly interpretation of NDEs: specific clothing details of those health-care personnel who resuscitated the patient, the precise order of events during the resuscitation, and emergency room details that could have been learned only by being present.6

One general comment directed to Augustine was that arguing for an afterlife was seldom the goal of NDE research.7 But Augustine, again following Potts, replied that while technically these studies may not have aimed at establishing an afterlife, it would be very difficult to deny that such a conclusion would follow rather naturally if human consciousness were capable of functioning after death, especially if natural explanations failed to suffice, as a large number of these studies seemed to indicate.8

Augustine concludes: “If there were evidence of the sort Potts outlined, then the data would contradict my critique of near-death veridicality studies; but, as Potts also noted, anything of the sort has yet to happen.”9 It is noteworthy that Augustine is not the only skeptical scholar who has agreed repeatedly that evidential NDEs could potentially establish a case for an afterlife or refute naturalism. Naturalistic psychologist Susan Blackmore similarly has asserted that NDE evidence could show her view to be mistaken.10 Accepting the evidential challenges especially by Augustine and earlier by Blackmore, the respondents in the Journal of Near-Death Studies responded by providing many particulars pertaining to their own areas of study.

Evidential NDE Corroboration within the Room

Before moving to an evidential case for NDEs, a brief response needs to be made regarding the issue raised by Augustine and other researchers concerning the prospective experiments that have attempted to determine whether any NDErs were able to detect random visual targets such as numbers placed high overhead. The critics enjoy pointing out that while some partial information has been collected here and there, no full identifications of the random numbers by NDErs have yet occurred.11 Perhaps these scholars hope that these issues could serve to cast doubt on all NDEs.12

In response, as will be noted more specifically below, some half dozen or more evidential NDE cases have included either the successful identification of specific numbers or the recognition of other casually placed or thrown objects found overhead that could only be seen from a position near the ceiling. These include the successful identification and repetition of a random twelve-digit numeral on the top of an overhead medical device where the incident was confirmed by a nurse who was present, a four-figure number, and two of the author’s own cases where smaller numbers were visible but could only be seen if the NDErs had been looking down from above their bodies. In a somewhat related case, a five-figure number was also correctly identified.

This list may be increased if the correct identification of unlikely or strange objects not seen from the ground but identified correctly by NDErs are also included. As Michael Sabom points out after many NDE interviews, the “inability to recall verifiable details was attributed by the person, time and time again, to the fact that his attention had been directed toward the unique and pleasant qualities of the experience, in overall amazement at what was occurring.”13 Given the corroboration that has been discovered, these examples indicate that perhaps skeptics should be a bit more reserved in their criticisms of the prospective cases, especially when comparable results have already been correctly observed by NDErs.

Augustine suggested (along with Potts) that evidential reports be produced regarding the specific clothing worn by resuscitation team members, plus the precise order of events that transpired during the process and other emergency room details that could have been known only by one who was present at the time. Although Augustine and Potts declared that such details were nonexistent, their comments were clearly mistaken on several fronts, as will be shown here.

On many occasions, it appeared to be more a matter of disbelieving or disregarding the details when they were actually produced. Certainly this would apply in the cases of correctly cited numbers and other odd objects that could only be observed from overhead!

Pertaining to accounts where emergency room clothing was identified by NDErs, Ken Ring and Madelaine Lawrence reported the intriguing account of Joyce Harmon, an ICU hospital nurse.

On her first day back at work after vacation, Harmon was a member of the medical team that successfully resuscitated a female patient whom she did not know. The very next day she saw the patient, who responded, “Oh, you’re the one with the plaid shoelaces!” and explained that she observed them while watching the resuscitation from overhead.

Intriguingly, Harmon had just purchased the plaid shoelaces while on her vacation and had worn them to the hospital that day for the very first time. Though casual or mundane conversations often occur in hospital settings even during stressful times, the color of shoelaces does not appear to be the most likely scenario that would be discussed or even noticed during a frantic resuscitation attempt.14

In another case,15 a nurse practitioner of my acquaintance in a Midwestern hospital rushed to the scene involving a patient experiencing an emergency situation due to cardiac arrest, where she assisted in a successful life-saving procedure. A couple of days later, an unknown patient introduced herself as the resuscitated patient. The latter explained that, during the resuscitation, she witnessed the rescue process from above her body and had observed a rather unique object worn on the nurse practitioner’s clothing, which the patient described in minute detail. The object had been borrowed the previous day and had already been returned to its owner.

The nurse practitioner was stunned most of all by the patient’s intricate description of the object even in the middle of the hectic assistance provided during her cardiac arrest. Even if a conversation were overheard due to the resuscitation and recounted so precisely (quite a stretch in itself, if not impossible for someone in her condition), it is quite unlikely that all the details would have been described precisely during a cardiac arrest.

What about Augustine’s and Pott’s request for the knowledge of a precise sequence of events during a resuscitation? While there are many examples from which to draw, one of the most detailed was reported by emergency room pediatrician Melvin Morse, who recounted the case of a girl (referred to as “Katie”; actual name Kristle Merzlock) who had nearly drowned. A physician was present at poolside, and it was documented that Kristle was without a pulse for at least seventeen minutes, exhibited no gag reflex, had fixed and dilated pupils, and was “profoundly comatose.” Morse noted that this condition most probably indicated that at least her upper brain was not functioning at that time, and that reversible brain damage had probably occurred.

Three days later, Kristle inexplicably revived. About three weeks later, in a follow-up exam, she took almost an hour to tell her entire story. Morse was incredibly impressed with the precise sequencing of her emergency room events and descriptions. She knew that a tall physician without a beard was the first one to enter the emergency room. Then she recounted that Morse, shorter and sporting a beard, had come in next and was chiefly responsible for resuscitating her. She also recounted that she had first been brought into a larger room and then was moved into a smaller one for X-rays. She knew that she had been intubated through her nose, although this procedure is more commonly done orally.16

Given that Kristle was unconscious the entire time, with her eyes closed, requiring mechanical ventilation to breathe over the next three days, this is an incredible report. Even if it were thought that Kristle somehow could have heard certain snippets of emergency room conversation, details like the physicians’ physical characteristics and the sizes of the hospital rooms seem to require sight, although that is certainly not the best explanation here. The clear and confirmed sequence is also beyond typical jumbled memories. Morse declared that this experience changed his life, including his religious agnosticism.17

Morse also relates other evidential NDE cases that also include a sequence of events, including an eight-year-old girl who nearly drowned in a swimming pool after her hair was caught in the drain. Her parents, then an emergency medical team, and lastly physicians in the emergency room all administered CPR for more than forty-five minutes before her heart began beating once again. A short time later, she exhibited “full recall of the event” and was capable of recounting the entire extended process of resuscitation.18

Another sequential case involved a woman who experienced a cardiac arrest that lasted about four minutes. During that time, she reported being up above her body and looking down below where she provided a description of the proceedings of the resuscitation attempts performed in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Perhaps most crucially, the paramedic crew members attested that she recalled several corroborated observations that occurred precisely during her cardiac arrest and were reported afterward.19 As documented below regarding cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation, both measurable heart and at least upper-brain activity would be eliminated in just seconds, with lower-brain activity ceasing just slightly afterward.

Lastly, Augustine and Potts also requested emergency room descriptions that could only have been known by someone actually present. Again, many examples on record could be noted. In one case, a young patient had almost died after suffering a cardiac arrest. There were also problems with a machine that was being used during the resuscitation process. The patient responded that the machine with the problems was actually unplugged. The nurse went and checked, and soon discovered that the patient was correct.20 Another patient under general anesthesia claimed that she had observed the situation from the ceiling. She said that she was also able to watch another surgery in the next room over, where she saw a patient undergoing the amputation of their leg, which was then placed inside a yellow bag! The attending surgeon related that she “described it as soon as she woke up.” The surgeon checked and found that the story of the amputation was true but attested that this was not possible naturally.21

Cardiologist Sabom has documented ten specific examples where patients, sometimes without any measurable heartbeat, have detailed many items regarding the layout of furniture and other objects in the hospital emergency room, specific observations regarding the instruments that were located there, and even detailed readings on the dials. Their observations have also included some uncommon medical practices that took place, which would not normally be guessed. Sabom concludes that several of the verified observations were such that they could only have been observed visually beyond any potential hearing.22

Greyson recalled another account that he investigated personally. In the middle of open-heart surgery, the patient later described watching the scene from above his body, noting that, while his chest cavity was open, his surgeon began “flapping his arms as if trying to fly.” When Greyson interviewed the surgeon, the latter explained his “peculiar habit.” After washing and at other times during the surgery, to keep his hands from any contamination, he often would place them against his chest and point out various things to his assistants by using his elbows. The appearance was that of “flapping” his elbows up and down.23 The cardiologist who was also present confirmed that the patient had accurately reported these details just “shortly after he regained consciousness following the surgery.”24

The sorts of cases requested by Augustine and Potts, exhibiting accurate descriptions drawn from specifics in the NDEr’s immediate vicinity, are hardly rare. Holden provides a list of 107 specific, evidenced NDE cases reported by many authors, with the greatest number describing the person’s immediate surroundings. Further, Holden made three distinct improvements to these data: (1) She arranged the publications by copyright date and omitted reports after 1975 that were either popular or autobiographical. (2) She also ordered the NDE accounts from the weakest to the strongest cases according to the kind of evidence presented, with the best rating being given to those that were confirmed by outside sources. (3) Lastly, she specifically singled out and recorded NDE accounts that contained any errors, though there were very few of these. She still ended up with these 107 reports.25

It should be noted that the majority of these detailed NDE accounts listed by Holden were recorded by major scholars, such as eleven cases from Ring and Valarino,26 ten cases from Cook, Greyson, and Stevenson,27 the ten mentioned from Sabom,28 seven from Fenwick and Fenwick,29 and seven from Morse.30 To these we might add many additional cases both before and after Holden’s research,31 along with a lengthy list taken from my own research and sometimes published elsewhere collected over a period of several decades.

Throughout this discussion thus far, specific cases have been mentioned where it was stated specifically or implied strongly that cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation can indicate exceptionally important evidential situations. This is due to the medically well-established and recognized research which specifies that such heart stoppage initiates the immediate and measurable elimination of upper-brain activity just seconds later during the persistence of this state. The cessation of lower-brain activity occurs just very slightly afterwards.32 Therefore, verified NDE data that occur within this time frame are exceptionally crucial in indicating the potential presence of consciousness beyond the quantifiable existence of the central nervous system. Literally dozens of cases have been recorded where corroboration inside a room has been documented during just such a state.33

A rather incredible number of these detailed and later verified observations of reported incidents exist, which most apparently occurred precisely within the moments when measurable heart and brain activity were substantiated as being measurably absent. This is a major argument for continued consciousness during these moments. Other options have been argued and will be treated below, but the sheer unlikelihood of mistakenness or deceit of one sort or another in every one of the dozens of different situations borders on credulity, particularly when the described occurrence happened precisely during those minutes rather than before or after.

These examples appear to address clearly the specific evidential requirements of Potts and Augustine from within the room where the NDEr was located, with details being reported during surgery or otherwise, where the best explanation is that the patient truly recalled events that were observed during that time, with each incident being confirmed by one or more persons who were actually present during that time. Due to the vantage point being claimed, the repeated testimony of patients that they were positioned above their bodies counts for something too. The “arm-flapping” episode represents one of many statements where the patient reported the insightful information very quickly after regaining consciousness, which contributes to the overall veridicality of this conclusion. Altogether, just from the narrated accounts or sources mentioned above, the total stands at well over 150 evidenced NDE cases from the immediate vicinity of the patient.

Evidential NDE Corroboration at a Distance

Other skeptical authors prefer different sorts of corroboration. Despite the requests from Augustine and Potts to produce very specific types of visual data within the emergency or operating room, or from the immediate vicinity of the NDEr, other skeptics like psychologist Susan Blackmore prefer visual information reported by the NDEr from a distance away, outside the room, that was corroborated later. Such data would be helpful to rule out the patient having learned the information from normal sense data drawn from the immediate proximity, even given the unlikelihood that such precise knowledge should be gained in that manner during cardiac arrest or general surgery.

For Blackmore, two specific varieties of cases would be the most evidential and have the most potential to disprove her naturalistic hypothesis: “distant vision” where the NDEr could not have obtained the reported data from their presence in the resuscitation room, and accurate NDE testimony from sightless persons. However, she attested that, search as she could, she was never able to locate good examples of either sort.34

It is agreed that verifiable cases of the sort that Blackmore requested, especially those from well beyond the NDEr’s immediate line of physical sight or hearing, could definitely provide yet another highly evidential angle that could help to establish a more multifaceted NDE case. Several such cases will be mentioned here. Some skeptics like Augustine above have criticized Kimberly Sharp Clark’s tennis shoe example, although subsequent research has buttressed her account.35 Blackmore is even positive here, pointing out that verified cases such as Sharp’s could possibly constitute strong evidence for the disembodied NDE thesis, though she attests that she was “unable to get any further information” here.36 The naturalistic thesis, on the other hand, predicts that such information must be derived by normal means.

Another case also involving a shoe found on a hospital roof was reported from all the way across the country by Kenneth Ring and Madelaine Lawrence. The resuscitated patient claimed to have experienced a NDE, floated above her body, and then watched the resuscitation attempt going on beneath her. Then she experienced being “pulled” through several floors of the hospital until she emerged near the building’s roof, where she viewed the Hartford, Connecticut, skyline. Looking down, she then observed a red shoe. When nurse Kathy Milne heard the story, she reported it to a resident physician, who mocked the account as a ridiculous tale. However, to ascertain even the possibility of an accurate report, he enlisted a janitor’s assistance and was led onto the roof, where he found the red shoe just as it was reported! This occurred in 1985, and Milne was unfamiliar with Maria’s tennis shoe account, which was published just shortly before.37

In the case of Kristle Merzlock mentioned earlier, the young girl who nearly drowned and was resuscitated by Morse, she reported more than the specifics of the resuscitation attempt and the sequential details from the emergency room. Upon regaining consciousness three days later, her intensive-care nurses initially heard her recollection of having visited heaven guided by an angel. Though there was no way to verify the angel, Kristle also testified that, although she was unconscious and hooked up in the hospital, she was “allowed” to observe her parents and siblings some distance away at home for the evening. She provided exact details regarding where each person was located in the house, identifying the specific things they were doing as well as the type of clothes they were wearing. For instance, she identified that her mother was cooking roast chicken and rice for dinner. All of these particulars were subsequently confirmed very soon afterwards.38

One of the most detailed distance cases involved a patient (Tony) and his wife, Pat (a nursing supervisor), who traveled to Milwaukee for a complex open-heart surgery. Due to an upper-body bleed, an additional open-chest surgery was planned for the very next day, but during that second prep, Tony’s “heart was arrested for 30 minutes” and he also suffered a respiratory arrest at the same time. During this trauma, Tony reported correct observations regarding his wife in the hospital waiting room and was able to look in on his home in Florida located over 1,200 miles away! There he watched a friend who was house-sitting for the couple while they were in Wisconsin. He reported to his wife a sequence of several amazing, very specific, as well as out-of-the-ordinary details that he had observed both in the hospital and then in their home. These reports were confirmed later, both by discussions with the house sitter as well as by their own observations upon returning to Florida concerning the somewhat strange events that Tony had narrated earlier to his wife and friend. This case was also investigated later by another physician.39 This incident involved a double heart and respiratory arrest and multiple distance sightings accompanied by more than one form of verification!

In two other instances, the physical distances between the patients and their rather incredible reported observations were approximately twenty and thirty miles away, respectively, and the details in both cases were confirmed by interviewers.40

Many other evidential NDE accounts have also included verification at a distance, with a number of these also being substantiated by subsequent interviews. Greyson, Kelly, and Kelly note from their NDE research that “60 people reported being aware of events occurring outside the range of their physical senses.”41 Greyson reported that a number of distance cases were researched and confirmed,42 including examples by Van Lommel et al.,43 along with Sartori, Badham, and Fenwick.44

Two journal articles—one by Cook, Greyson, and Stevenson,45 and another by Kelly, Greyson, and Stevenson46—recorded a total of fifteen more NDEs with observations viewed at a distance. Long reported that the cases involved in these two NDE studies were concerned with “observing earthly events far from their physical bodies and beyond any possible physical sensory awareness.” These accounts of “corroboration of the NDErs’ remote observations” were made by others, resulting in the subsequent confirmation of the testimonies.47 To these we could also add still more confirmed distance testimonies that were reported by Morse,48 Sabom,49 and an anecdotal case by Ford.50

Adding to the evidential nature of these events is another large number of reported and documented distance NDEs that also reportedly occurred in the absence of any measurable heart or brain activity.51 A number of the cardiac arrest cases include some of the strongest evidential scenarios.52 Once again, as in the previous category of corroborated observation inside the room, it grows even more exceedingly unlikely that every last one of another dozen cases exhibiting neither apparent heart nor brain activity can be meaningfully accounted for by data learned through other means, misperception or deception, coincidences, or mistakes, especially when the events described occurred precisely within the time interval of the medical crisis rather than subsequently.

Just these accounts alone combine to total more than 110 evidenced NDEs reported a distance away from the experiencer! This testimony must be viewed as among the most convincing corroborated reports of all. The attempts to explain away this wide variety of observed scenarios, especially the compound cases here, more likely reveal the pervasive influence of one’s worldviews and unwillingness to explain the data at hand!

Evidential NDE Corroboration concerning Previously Deceased Persons

Another exceptional category of data concerns evidential accounts where it was unknown that particular loved ones or friends had died recently, often elsewhere in the country or the world, until the other persons reportedly appeared in the NDE or deathbed vision. Greyson notes three distinct species of these experiences: (1) Where the death of the deceased individual was previously unknown to the NDEr who subsequently learned the relevant information. (2) On other occasions, the deceased person had died at the same time as the NDE, or “immediately beforehand,” thus precluding previous knowledge by those present. (3) The deceased was sometimes a person whom the NDEr did not even know.53

Common to all three species of these NDEs (especially in this last category), data were purportedly imparted from the previously deceased individuals who were unknown to those involved before their hearing these things. Then the reports were confirmed subsequently. Over two dozen such examples were collected by Greyson.54 Other researchers have also presented similar accounts such as these.55

Regarding the three subtypes here, Greyson notes that since these accounts cannot be attributed to the NDEr’s expectations or knowledge, subjective hallucinations should be ruled out. It should be noted additionally that the wide variety of evidential reports in this category that were later confirmed due to additional investigation argue even more strongly against subjective states explaining these NDE observations, since hallucinations and similar phenomena are subjective in nature and thus do not properly account for reports of actual aspects in the world that could not have been observed even in healthy, fully functioning bodies in the vicinities of the objects observed.

Three examples will be mentioned here briefly. Cardiologist Van Lommel described the case of a man who had an NDE after a cardiac arrest, who related to him that during his NDE, he had met his biological father who had died many years earlier. However, not only had the NDEr never met his father previously, but he never even knew that his father was other than another man whom he had called his father all of his life and who had raised him. Yet on her deathbed, his mother confided the highly personal information that his father was other than his “father”! When she showed him a photograph, the NDEr accurately identified the man from his NDE: his actual father whom he had never known about before!56

Among the many cases recounted by Greyson, two will be recounted briefly. A young nine-year-old boy named Eddie was seriously ill in a hospital. Recovering from a thirty-six-hour fever, Eddie immediately told those in the hospital room that he had been to heaven, recounting seeing his grandfather, an aunt, and an uncle there. But then his startled and agitated father heard Eddie report that his nineteen-year-old sister, away at college, was in heaven too, and that she told Eddie that he had to return. But the father had just spoken to his daughter two days prior. Checking with the college, the father found out that his daughter had been killed in a car accident the previous day, but that the college could not reach the family at their home, presumably because of Eddie’s hospital stay!57

Greyson also recounted another case where Jack was exceptionally ill in a hospital with double pneumonia. His nurse Anita had left that weekend to go home for her twenty-first birthday party. Soon after, Jack suffered a pulmonary arrest and experienced an NDE, where he saw Anita, who asked him to tell her parents that she was sorry that she had wrecked the new red sports car that they had just given her, and to tell them that she loved them. She likewise told Jack that he had to return but that she was remaining there. The accident had apparently occurred the same day that Jack arrested or just hours beforehand. When Jack told another nurse about his NDE, she promptly ran out of the hospital room crying since she and Anita had been good friends.58 Apparently, the story was not well-known yet!

Moreover, as in our previous two categories, some of the reports here concern cardiac arrest cases that most likely also extend beyond measurable heart and brain activity.59 Even further, some of these examples reportedly involved additional evidenced testimonies from those who had not only been finally deceased rather than “near death,” but even including some in the afterlife state who had been dead for years or even decades. These examples are some of the responses that help address the potential objections that perhaps some remaining residual activity in the NDEr’s nervous system could still account for these corroborative reports, or that life after death is perhaps only of relatively brief duration. Once again, post-cardiac arrest cases plus the possibility of testimonies from irreversibly dead persons strengthen this category considerably, closing the door further and making natural explanations even more unlikely!60

These compound evidential situations discussed here regard about thirty cases of persons who reported being with previously deceased individuals (with confirmation from several types of corroborative details). They raise considerably the evidential bar in favor of the combined NDE data. No wonder Greyson asserts that “cases such as these provide some of the most persuasive evidence for the ontological reality of deceased spirits. Recent medical and societal advances in end-of-life care offer favorable opportunities for the further investigation of these cases.”61

Evidential Corroboration from Shared NDEs

Still another type of substantiation is supplied by simultaneous or shared NDEs reported by at least two different people, including accounts from physicians or nurses, among others. Usually in these situations, a healthy person shares part or all of the NDE experience of the ill individual.62 In one of Morse’s cases, a seventeen-year-old boy named Shane died in a traffic accident. His fifteen-year-old deaf sister Cheryl “observed” the entire accident process, though she was a distance away at home when the event occurred. She observed Shane “flying through the air” and knew that he was dead. Cheryl sensed that her brother was contacting her without words, relating that he wanted to show her “something really cool.” She then reported that the two of them “rose in the air, high above the scene of the accident.” She accompanied her deceased brother to heaven, where they met previously dead relatives.

Her brother did not return, since he was deceased. But during the process, her parents could hear her talking to her brother while the other three family members were all at home, where Cheryl was present and conscious. Upon her “return,” she brought back information that no one else knew, but which was subsequently verified. Shane had repeatedly said to Cheryl, “I know something that you don’t know.” Then he told his sister that their aunt was pregnant with a boy, though no one in the family knew that at the time.63 Cheryl reported observing the event while her two parents witnessed her side of the conversation.

Moody described another shared NDE where five family members in Atlanta were present during the last moments of their mother’s life. They were stunned as each of them simultaneously witnessed a bright light appear inside the room where they were all gathered. Several lights morphed into an entranceway through which they watched as their mother’s image or spirit apparently left her body and appeared to enter through the entrance! The joyous family members agreed that the entryway reminded them of Natural Bridge in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. The family members told the hospice nurse, who replied that she had heard similar things before and “that it was not uncommon for the dying process to encompass people nearby.”64

In yet another example, a woman who had experienced cardiac arrest for several minutes reported a string of corroborated items that occurred precisely during this state, which is highly evidential given her lack of heart and brain function during that time. But to compound the matter further, her husband testified that he had shared the beginning of her NDE, witnessing her immaterial self actually rising above her body. One paramedic named Carl stated, “She was able to tell us word for word what we said, everything that we did physically to her, and was able to say it in such detail.”65

Another out-of-the-ordinary example from the author’s NDE collection concerns two family members who were both in hospitals in different locations halfway across the country from each other. They both reported a simultaneous NDE where they were with each other, even though neither knew the other was even in the hospital. When resuscitated, each reported their experiences to those in their respective rooms, with the similar descriptions from the two separate viewpoints being made known later to family members. Subsequent interviews confirmed these basic details.

Other shared NDE cases are reported by various researchers.66 There is not a large number of joint experiences of this sort when compared to the other varieties, but we have mentioned about another dozen potential cases here.

Evidential Corroboration from Sightless NDErs

Remembering the earlier challenge from those like Blackmore to produce NDE accounts from blind persons, yet another type of NDE evidence was produced largely by Ken Ring and Sharon Cooper, who provided detailed reports of thirty-one blind NDErs. These cases produced several accurate testimonies, both from inside the room occupied by the patient as well as outside of it. There are fewer cases in this category and the evidence is less than what has been provided elsewhere, yet it still adds to the overall discussion and seems to be difficult for many of the specific items to have been known previously by the patients through any of their physical senses.

One of the described episodes concerned a woman named Vicki who had been blind from birth. During her NDE, Vicki reported color images, including a rendezvous with two close friends from her youth. Both of them also had been blind, and both had died previously. She reported that two other deceased friends and a deceased relative were also present. She provided accurate physical descriptions of each one, even though she had never seen any of them before.67 She also provided details such as glimpsing the roof of the hospital as well as describing details on some jewelry.68

Another NDE case involved a woman named Nancy who became blind during an operation and remained completely blind afterwards. She had an ambu bag placed over her nose and mouth to make her breathe. In her NDE, she reported watching the process away from her body. Afterward, she properly described the identities of two men standing down the hallway away from her, as well as recounting the number of staff people around her. Her medical records plus a testimony from one of the men were “in substantial agreement” with Nancy’s comments and agreed “in virtually every significant respect.” Ring and Cooper characterized Nancy’s case as the “strongest since it was backed up by independent witnesses and various forms of documentation.”69

Brad had been blind since birth. He had stopped breathing for a few minutes and then noticed himself looking down on his body in the bed. He described details of another person in the room with him who went to get help, then experienced himself going up through the ceiling and out of the building, where he observed the rooftop. He related that he could see clearly and described the scene outside of his home by providing many details, including very specific information regarding the snow on the ground and how it had been plowed into heaps. A streetcar also drove by. In another instance, Frank was a blind man who described the pattern of colors and designs on a necktie that he had received. Some of these details were confirmed in additional interviews.70

Ring and Cooper conducted extensive discussions with these blind individuals, including attempting to track down their stories with others who were present. Their conclusion was that “the blind persons in our study saw what they certainly could not possibly have seen physically. Our findings in this section only establish a putative case that these visions were factually accurate, and not just some kind of fabrication, reconstruction, lucky guess, or fantasy.”71 Others have also included NDE cases in the blind.72 Four more NDE cases in the blind were cited here, bringing the total count from these five categories so far to more than 300 evidential NDE cases.

Additional Evidential NDE Corroboration

One volume of reports makes it exceptionally difficult for NDE naysayers, for this text contains more than 100 confirmed NDE reports, adding many noteworthy cases to the overall numbers! According to the text’s researchers, the major criterion for the NDE accounts included in the volume was that each episode must have been “directly confirmed by at least one other person.”73 Such strict requirements make this text all the more valuable.

This new research contains fourteen corroborated cases from the vicinity of the NDEr, eighteen more accounts from a distance beyond the NDEr’s senses (sometimes very far away), plus more than thirty-six additional reports from cardiac arrest patients. These last heart-stoppage cases, of which there are more examples below, are certainly among the most impressive due to being states in which, “according to current materialist models, such perceptions should have been impossible.”74 Add to these testimonies a few dozen other cases that include shared NDEs, meeting deceased loved ones and friends while in the ND state, along with learning previously unknown information during NDEs. Additional “compound” cases are also included in this text, where NDEs were accompanied by physical healings, the acquisition of messages unaccompanied by spoken words, or other evidential occurrences. A total of sixty-six accounts in this work were not included in our earlier tallies.75 Along with several additional cases not previously mentioned so far, this would bring our total evidenced count from this essay alone to between 300 and 400 corroborated NDE cases across a wide variety of types and subtypes.76

There is much variety among the 100-plus corroborated cases in this last volume too, including some of the most evidential cases on record. For example, considering once again confirmed cases from inside the room, the NDE reports include an NDEr who suffered a cardiac arrest and did not respond to resuscitation attempts until he received a shot of epinephrine in his heart. He reported that he was “out of my body and floating above the trauma room.” Peering down from above, he observed a quarter perched on top of an eight-foot-tall medical machine underneath him. He told the physician about the quarter and that it was dated 1985. The physician took a ladder to the ICU, and while the nurses were watching, he retrieved the coin and verified that the date was exactly what the patient had recorded! The doctor later published the account!77

Another NDE patient who had suffered a cardiac arrest also related that she “had observed the room from above.” In the process she noted a long, twelve-digit number listed on top of a high medical machine beneath her, and, suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder, memorized the number and repeated it to the nurse and others there, who wrote down the figure. When the patient no longer required the machine, a custodian set up a ladder, to dust the top, and then moved it out. The twelve-digit number was repeated, and it was the same figure that the witnesses had originally written down from the NDEr.78 Later, a nurse verified the story once again, stating that this incident was one of the most incredible occurrences that she had ever witnessed.79

Locating additional examples from this volume consists largely of choosing from among dozens of potentially impressive reports according to the researcher’s ideas of what would comprise the strongest scenarios. In another instance, a patient without heartbeat or brain activity for fully twenty to twenty-five minutes during hospital surgery correctly reported many details in the operating room such as an anesthesiologist who came rushing back into the room after having left as well as a collection of Post-it notes attached to the physician’s monitor that had accumulated during the surgery but were not present before the beginning of the operation. The patient was declared dead and the body was prepared for an autopsy with the chest basically remaining open. The patient’s wife was even informed of his death before his reviving spontaneously and making these accurate observations!

One of the attending cardiologists wrote that for “close to 20 minutes or more of no life, no physiologic life, no heartbeat, no blood pressure, no respiratory function whatsoever and then he came back to life and told us what was on the video . . . with no cardiac pulmonary movement or brain function . . . but it happened and I am a living witness of this case, I was there.” This physician added that while he had seen patients who still had some life in them and recovered, “in this case there was no life.” He also commended the chief attending cardiac surgeon who had given an exceptionally detailed medical account and then attested, “Dr. Ruby’s description of this event at the time of this patient’s surgery is absolutely correct . . . these are the facts.”80

In another case, a nurse who was present at a resuscitation attempt described a woman who had suffered a severe heart attack that had left her in a state of clinical death. The patient later reported occupying a location up above her body. While looking down from a corner of the room near the ceiling, she correctly reported a number of items, including an IV bottle that had accidentally smashed on the operating room floor, as well as watching as an especially prized hair clip belonging to the nurse fall onto the floor, getting stepped on, and broken. The patient even identified and provided a description of the particular physician who had accidentally broken the clip!81

Still another incident reported from outside the room involved a seventeen-year-old patient who was in a coma after a car accident left her with a severe brain injury, causing her to be flown to the ER. She reported having an NDE where she was up near the ceiling and then was still able to watch her family members, who were in the hospital cafeteria. Her father, a smoker, announced that he was going to light up a cigarette. Then the young woman watched her two grandmothers assert that they were also going to have a smoke with her father. Incredibly however, one of her grandmothers (identified as her mother’s mother) had never smoked in her entire life and had always proclaimed loudly over the years that no one would ever see her with a cigarette! Yet the patient witnessed the incident and told her mother that she had seen both of her grandmothers smoking, and her mother confirmed that this incident had indeed occurred.82

Another aspect of the overall state of the NDE evidence needs to be mentioned here too. While we have described many of the different directions and angles from which the NDE corroboration emerges, the fact ought not be missed that literally dozens of individual NDE cases mentioned or referred to here were confirmed by the presence of more than one species or kind of evidence each. The examples can be multiplied almost at will: two drowning girls and other similar instances without heartbeat while later providing complete sequential descriptions over a half hour or more; several cases of very long-distance observations from many miles away, at least three of which were also cardiac arrest cases, with one of these NDEs additionally being testified by a healthy person as having been a shared experience. The dozens of accounts during at least the probable absence of both heart and brain activity accompanied by evidence sometimes of more than one variety involve triple confirmations! Verification was provided in each of these cases.

Moreover, a few cases of blind NDErs (some from birth) have emerged, where they apparently “saw” items that were corroborated before reverting back to their previous blind states. In some of the many cardiac arrest patients that presented plentiful examples of accurately observed data, at least one of these NDErs was reportedly detected by another healthy person. This corroboration in other cardiac arrest cases came before resuscitation ever began. Other NDE testimonies came from occurrences clearly having occurred during the state of cardiac arrest. Then there are the accounts where numbers of specific objects located above the heads of those in the room below were accurately reported by cardiac arrest patients. Many other testimonies involve meeting deceased loved ones or friends whose deaths were unknown, but where sometimes rather startlingly accurate knowledge was also communicated. The prospect of explaining all these combinational accounts seems especially troublesome for NDE deniers.

Do NDEs Provide Actual Details regarding “Heaven” or the Nature of the Afterlife?

Many NDErs claim and even believe firmly that they have visited some sort of exceptionally peaceful heavenly realm. Could that actually have been the case? Can it be concluded that these NDErs were literally on the “other side,” or at least got a chance to see that realm whatever the exact nature or the location, imparting true conclusions about it? Could it also be the case that since many unbelievers, avowed atheists included, have also claimed to have witnessed otherworldly and even wonderful environments as well, these reports similarly constitute a warranted conclusion, with or without a conversion?83

While the testimonies on this subject are often quite moving as well as potentially convincing, a crucial distinction must be made. It needs to be remembered that almost every one of the 300 to 400 evidential NDEs mentioned or referred to above, with very few exceptions, concern confirmation pertaining to this world. And even those rare times where testimony may provide a veridical comment that may just impinge on another world or form of existence, it rarely reaches the detailed level of corroboration that is frequently heard in the stronger cases.

Potential testimonies from a “heavenly realm” could still possibly warrant consideration of some sort or another. However, by the criteria presented in this essay, such reports would need to be evidenced, rather than being the prevalent sorts of comments such as the incredible beauty of the music or the surroundings, ineffable feelings, heightened senses of awareness, or the correct identifications of heavenly figures such as Jesus, an angelic presence, or other religious figures. But the chief problem in these heavenly cases is that the comments are almost totally without corroborating evidence by which the instances might be evaluated.

One exception from the above reports might involve some of the cases where the NDEr reported comments from previously deceased individuals who sometimes died years earlier, where verifiable information is imparted. But in these cases, the focus is on the comments that may present confirmable details rather than the nature of the heavenly environment. Even if such long-deceased individuals may have added more generic comments concerning the environment, or even that they were doing well, these latter remarks could simply have been matters of the NDEr’s interpretation that were appended to the veridical statements within the testimonies.

To state the matter more succinctly, it is the evidential reports that are necessary. Other sorts of comments in whole or part may simply be the NDEr’s views or honest reflections. But except in the specific instances where the potential data can be checked, how else can it be ascertained as to which of the remarks or portions and snippets of otherwise reliable information can be known probabilistically to be correct and true?

Caution of a different sort needs to be inserted here as well. When reports or comments cannot be verified, this does not at all indicate automatically that all the imparted content is thereby false. Some or even all of the NDEr’s report still could be true. But as before, the issue becomes how it could be determined which portions might be true? How would these be known?

Thus, to proceed back to the original question, it would appear that very little of NDE comments could populate any potential information concerning the actual environment or other details pertaining to heaven. Again, there could be any number of true reports there, but none that could be known for sure. Personal feelings cannot be completely ignored, but neither can an individual’s unverified testimony be taken as evidence that details the afterlife existence. It may constitute a harsh reality, but unsubstantiated statements here are closer to one’s testimonies and beliefs. Anyone may of course listen and compose their own beliefs, but neither should these be propagated as established data.

The same evaluation would likewise seem to apply to testimonies regarding negative NDEs, including even grotesque, hellish accounts.84 As just stated, these experiences actually could be true in whole or in part, but like the other testimonies, there do not seem to be ways to demonstrate that this is the case.85

Thus, heavenly sights and sounds, common meetings with family members or other loved ones, though without corroboration, life reviews, or having positive, negative, or in-between experiences and feelings are interpersonal and are rarely supported by evidence—especially not like the degree that has been discussed throughout this appendix. Hence, while the experiences could have occurred in whole or in part and no doubt influence one’s personal views, they cannot be used with any probability to establish specific religious doctrines or falsehoods.

What follows from these ideas is that NDEs may point quite well to an afterlife of some sort but where distinguishing between individual religious perspectives fails to follow. Thus, members belonging to various religious persuasions can basically stand shoulder-to-shoulder and endorse the evidential NDEs as phenomena that, while they do not settle theological differences between them, still agree that these occurrences are among the best reasons that refute philosophical naturalism’s rejection of an afterlife. But NDEs cannot tell us which religious worldview is true, as in questions like Eastern versus Western views, universalism, syncretism, and so on. Many religious ideas are potentially compatible with the general afterlife truth of corroborative NDEs, which is the chief consideration here.

Besides the decided lack of documented data to confirm hardly any of the especially otherworldly elements of NDE accounts, a second factor is also known to be the case. There is a vast amount of data which indicate that cultural influences along with personal interpretations of the data do shape especially the heavenly aspects of how these experiences are described and interpreted. Examples abound here. The identifications of the presumed nonhuman heavenly beings (except, possibly, the generic concept of angels) perhaps head the list. Also prominent are the particular religious messages delivered later by NDErs, presumably through their own theological lenses. Further, particularly common experiences in some cultures, such as the sensation of traveling through a tunnel, appear to be absent in many Eastern contexts and are usually thought to be culturally inspired. Another example is whether male or female “human greeters” are more frequently reported during the NDE (often with large discrepancies being observed between cultures).86

Some researchers distinguish between primary, evidenced NDE features, which are more reliable, versus secondary ones that differ from culture to culture and according to other considerations like interpretations and “spins.”87 The differences between veridical factual reports and the interpretations drawn from them is exceptionally significant. Researchers agree that, in contrast to this-worldly, corroborated aspects of NDE consciousness, there is virtually no way to evidence the uncorroborated heavenly visions themselves.88

After assessing his own research computations regarding the differences between the more factual reports from the physical world and the NDErs’ cultural or religious interpretations, Sabom reported that “religious beliefs appear to affect the interpretation but not the content of the NDE.” Thus, NDErs often develop a deepening faith after their experience, but whether that change takes them in the direction of “Eastern religion, New Age spirituality, Christianity and so on—appears to be influenced by factors other than the NDE itself.”89 Sabom adds elsewhere that NDEs are therefore not indicators of who is “headed for heaven . . . and those headed for hell.” He continues, “Thus, I do not believe that there is compelling evidence that NDE content or type is an accurate diagnostic of a person’s religious beliefs, nor are they road signs pointing to a person’s ultimate destiny.”90 We have seen that other researchers listed in the notes above have reached similar conclusions especially regarding these cultural and interpretive factors.91

NDEs do provide some robust evidence for consciousness in near-death states, especially during more advanced stages, such as when neither the NDErs’ hearts nor their brains appear to be functioning, or when exceptional evidence is derived from previously deceased individuals. Many other veridical details have been presented as well. The number and variety of these cases are versatile enough to appeal to those who prefer different sorts of evidence in various situations accompanied by strong data. Cultural factors along with personal interpretations generally appear to give shape to these experiences.92 But alternative theses have been offered to challenge even the more evidential ideas, to which we turn now.

Naturalistic Rejoinders

It is not surprising that there also have been many attempts to argue for various natural alternate theses against such NDE testimonies, especially against the idea that some species of afterlife thesis may follow. Many scholars of a more naturalistic inclination would probably agree with agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell concerning the connection between some concept regarding the existence of God and immortality as key ideas within the major religions.93 Thus, the incredible number of details drawn from NDE studies might be seen as potential challenges to various naturalistic positions. The connections between these religious ideas is not being pursued here, only that some of the reasons for opposing NDE data would initially resonate with many who oppose religion and its influence. This may account in large part for some of the chief opposition to NDEs.

Many scholars have examined thoroughly a large number of natural rejoinders in an effort to explain NDEs in completely normal terms. Other scholars have also compiled a wide variety of responses directed at these natural efforts researched by the most able NDE defenders today.94 While critics have attempted to disprove these NDE reports as nothing more than subjective experiences, hundreds of pages of both critiques and countercritiques have been offered. A number of the major pros and cons have already been introduced at the outset of this essay, drawn from the four-issue dialogue in the Journal of Near-Death Studies in 2007–2008. The real question is the outcome of this clash. Which position assembles the best retorts and establishes a clear advantage based on the available data? Some questions will help to point the way through the major issues.

For example, were the events that were recounted in ND reports witnessed personally by the NDEr during the event itself, or were they learned in some other way? It is undisputed that many of these corroborated ND reports clearly concern incidents that had occurred during the distressed medical states. But could all of these testimonies have been derived from naturally acquired information learned by some means other than observation via the actual NDE (perhaps through natural senses, or just before the resuscitation, or sometime after the particular occurrences took place)?

Quite clearly, many of the more than 150 evidential NDE accounts mentioned above and elsewhere from inside the room appeared to come from where the patient was positioned, containing many observations that were both specific as well as quite often being rather mundane, as opposed to the attention-grabbing, easily remembered reports from others. These evidential and correctly reported accounts cover a very wide variety of data: from readings on machine dials, to an unplugged medical device that no one but the NDEr had noticed, to a “bird-like,” arm-flapping surgeon in the operating room, to the proper location of misplaced dentures, to a nurse wearing plaid shoelaces, among many others. Other times, the nature and even the wording of jokes told to relieve tension inside the room were recounted, or the reporting of embarrassing incidents that transpired during the episode, while occasional ND experiences were reportedly even shared by other healthy persons in attendance.

Together, a simply staggering array of sometimes no more than “chance hypothesizing” would have to identify how these over 150 cases in the same room were not observed precisely during the time sequence when the individual thought that they saw or heard them. The point is that critics have to explain all the cases in this or another naturalistic way—none can be due to a real, veridical NDE. Nor should “maybes” and “perhaps” be continuously substituted for real data. Sure, “what ifs” sometimes do occur. But these responses are not on equal footing with observed data. That natural rejoinders can carry the day in each of the cases seems to be highly improbable.

Further, many observations clearly emanated from the vantage point and angle of the ceiling, precisely as claimed by the NDEr, who had no doubt they were looking down at themselves from above their bodies rather than relating normal comments that reflected eye-level observations. When ceiling-level, elevated viewpoints were frequently revealed in these reports, including corroborated information from that position, then the higher location has to be favored. This is especially the case when some of these reported items could only be seen from the upper angle, such as the several cases of looking down on accurately reported numbers.95

Moreover, studies such as Sabom’s included a control group consisting of twenty-five cardiac patients who had not experienced an ND episode plus other related data. Beyond this, 80 percent of the cardiac control group members made at least one major error in their imagined descriptions, whereas the NDErs’ descriptions were “accurate in all instances where corroborating evidence was available.”96 Penny Sartori likewise utilized a control group, with similar results to those of Sabom: while the NDE descriptions were highly accurate with some errors, those who had been resuscitated but without NDEs were exceptionally inaccurate.97

The indications drawn from evidenced reports precisely during the NDE itself, the elevated viewpoint and angle of many of the perceptions, and the mistakes by those who did not observe events from those heights all point in the direction of the testimony originating during the NDE episodes. Other suppositions are far less likely.

Could resuscitation attempts “wake” the brain just long enough for the patient to observe certain elements in the room by natural means? Medical experts have asserted that re-achieving consciousness does not occur in just seconds, but rather does not really return until after the heart has actually been restarted again, and for a long enough time to get past the initial confusion. Furthermore, in several cases, no resuscitation efforts at all had even been administered to the patient before the NDE observation, or such efforts had been discontinued before the NDE, clearly eliminating this particular natural option.98 In some cases, Parnia and Fenwick add that EEG activity may even take hours to return.99

Moreover, these natural retorts of dying or waking brains during CPR producing in-room data would not even apply to many or even most of the strongest NDE reports, such as all of those taking place over a distance, or when healthy persons share the NDEs, or to seeing deceased friends or loved ones who impart unknown information, or to experiences by blind persons—in other words, to an entire host of evidential scenarios.

Were any evidential reports observed precisely during the periods of “brain death”? This question must be addressed at more than one level. Increasingly, the most evidential NDE cases are usually thought to occur especially when confirmation is produced of occurrences during a state of cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. It is exceptionally well documented that during such a condition, the heart stops and at least higher (cortical) brain activity usually ceases in a matter of just ten to fifteen seconds or so afterwards.100 Then even lower brain stem activity likewise ceases very shortly afterward.101 Besides, any lower-level brain activity that just possibly may be present for slightly longer than upper-level cortical consciousness—generally just seconds—would be insufficient to explain high-level consciousness anyway, including the clearest, most realistic experiences that NDErs have ever reported in their entire lives, not to mention the frequently reported confirmation.102

About three dozen cases were cited in this study during the time when verified data were reported after such cardiac arrests began, well beyond the very brief brain shutdown window that began just seconds later, and which was often prolonged for many minutes beyond that. Further, many of the reported and confirmed incidents themselves actually occurred precisely within these time periods, as mentioned.

These evidential confirmations included observations that were reported from a viewpoint and angle just above the body. These included exceptionally minute details, such as observing medical machine readings, hearing repeated frantic conversations pertaining to an arrested heart, observing details, identifying those who made the comments, observing the clothing worn, plus detecting accurately even the proper order of exact numbers that could only be seen from above. Often, sequences of these details were repeated end to end. Although in dozens of cases these accurate observations among others actually occurred precisely during this time when the heart and brain were apparently flatlining, what is the likelihood that the details in every single case were discovered some other way at another time, while almost magically fitting into just these exact intervals? Conversely, can these alternate suppositions themselves be demonstrated instead of being just guesses themselves?

Add to these observations that even fully operating, healthy brains still could not explain the more than 100 corroborative cases from a distance outside an individual’s line of physical sight that were mentioned in this essay or many of the over 300 total evidenced NDE observations cited here. Then there are still the other examples where the NDEr sometimes reported encountering a deceased individual where the meeting was also evidential in nature. Although the NDEr returned to normal life, the purportedly deceased person in the encounter had been finally dead for some time, often for many years.103 If this is indeed the best explanation for this last set of events, then these NDEs definitely extend far beyond the irreversible biological death of the deceased individual’s brain!

These last evidential considerations clearly bypass the issue of cardiac arrest altogether. Such confirmed cases along with many others simply increase the likelihood that at least some NDE accounts apparently report actual data from conscious states that most likely extend far beyond the death of the physical body including the brain. So the question of whether any NDEs extend during and beyond brain death may be answered affirmatively.

Several natural rejoinders to NDEs have been considered here, yet the majority of them do not need to be treated individually. Due to the very nature of the topic, NDEs have a powerful advantage over virtually all other supernatural-natural issues that are debated by scholars. Due to the nature of this subject, there is a theoretical line in the sand that is automatically built into this particular discussion. Many if not most alternative hypotheses, including the most prominent ones, postulate conditions that are internal to the individual NDEr, such as oxygen deprivation, temporal lobe seizure, drugs, exaggerations, false statements, hallucinations, or either a dying or a waking brain. That is, they rely chiefly upon the interior physiological conditions and/or psychological states of the NDEr’s mind or body. Thus, a large portion of NDE critiques depend upon subjective conditions mostly inside individuals, while often attempting simply to deny outside corroboration. Herein lies the chief rub for naturalists regarding these particular theses.

The central problem for the overall natural position, then, is that in this essay alone we have so far described or identified the sources for well over 300 cases of external circumstances which argue for the veracity of these NDEs. Many reports are drawn from the immediate or surrounding vicinity of the NDEr, while others are derived from a distance away, beyond the eyes and ears of everyone present and, most of all, beyond the senses of the NDEr herself. Some describe individual events and others involve a sequence of occurrences. Some of the NDEs are reportedly shared by healthy onlookers, and still others occur simultaneously. A few of the NDErs are blind, and others claim to have met deceased individuals who imparted evidential information that they and/or others did not know. Lastly, many NDEs are confirmed by multiple species of evidence.

Therefore, if even just a handful of key examples (let alone dozens) among these well over 300 evidential cases here accurately reported data from the “real world,” it would seem that the subjective theses attempting to explain away these experiences would then fail by a large margin to account for all of the key aspects of the reports. This is precisely what the NDErs themselves have always claimed all along, often based on no more than their personal experience alone!

Here’s the key: no matter what subjective, internal states the critics wish to discuss, by their very nature, objective, externally corroborated NDEs are unexplainable. Something that exists objectively—out there—cannot be refuted or denied by internal human issues.

In short, here is the single major problem with most if not virtually all natural theses against NDEs: they utterly fail to explain the evidential NDE cases. In order for the natural suppositions to work, almost every one of these 300-plus corroborative accounts cited here alone must be mistaken! But how likely is that, particularly given the careful scientific efforts to determine the accuracy of many dozens of them? But there must be no evidential remainder from the 300-plus cases if the natural challenge is to succeed, for by their nature, the internal suppositions are absolutely trumped by the external, evidential ones!

Since a plethora of well-evidenced NDEs cover so many different angles and circumstances, “shotgun” natural explanations are sometimes suggested too. Perhaps some of these events are due to interviews that are too old, or drawn from false memories, or the evidence may have been exaggerated or even consist of lies. These multiple suggestions could potentially explain some of the NDE data. But it is highly dubious and untenable that the more than 300 evidenced cases referred to in this chapter can be accounted for even by the totality of such suggestions. Many ND testimonies were shared or collected immediately upon the spot, or at least very soon afterwards, and many of the specific details were confirmed by a variety of witnesses who participated in the occurrences, in addition to other checks and balances. Many truly exceptional NDE instances were singled out and checked even more meticulously by researchers. These evidential cases need to be explained.

It would seem, then, that Augustine’s personal concession might come into play here, namely, that the presence of these sorts of confirmed NDE data, if they obtained, would both “contradict” his naturalistic thesis as well as indicate the likelihood of an afterlife.104 It was noted above that Blackmore and Potts also made similar comments if the NDE evidence were indeed accurate.105 Of course, these scholars do not think that they are mistaken.106 But this is a cautionary note to those who repeatedly close the naturalistic door that opposes NDE data seemingly no matter how great the quality or quantity of the corroborative reports that continue to accumulate. The tide seems clearly to have turned in recent years, and much further than many thought possible too. This is especially the case when such a wide variety and quality of different types of NDE reports emerge, all coming from different angles, particularly when multiple sorts of evidence affirm many of the accounts.

As with other somewhat similar debates, the naturalistic position certainly appears to occupy the far weaker position, and seemingly by a long shot in this case. Yet it simply seems that the lesser stance held by naturalists here is all that remains! The internal position is generally chosen while the claim is made that there are no true external evidences among the 300-plus NDE testimonies here, which appears to be a highly unlikely view. But what else can be said? This is precisely the line in the sand over which the natural positions appear to have tripped!107

Nonnatural Objections

Other alternative views may question whether NDEs lead to probable arguments for an afterlife without necessarily being naturalistic in nature. These positions often or even usually recognize the legitimacy of ESP/psi and similar phenomena. One view questions whether evidential information gained during NDEs may come from the minds of living persons who are privy to such reports such as via telepathy instead of from a future world.108 Another position also usually concedes psi data and even NDE reports while opting for impersonal versions of survival.109 These two positions will be critiqued briefly, especially regarding how these rivals might fare in relation to the data presented in this essay.

Versions of especially the initial view above have sometimes been referred to as “super-psi” views by which, narrowed for the purposes here, an individual such as an NDEr might gain what is concluded to be evidential information indicating an afterlife scenario when the report was actually derived subconsciously from the mind of a living individual who knew these details quite naturally, emphasized especially by Sudduth as “living-agent psi” (LAP).110 For example, an NDEr who reported accurately what a nurse told her family members in a hospital waiting room could potentially have received true information by telepathy from the nurse or from any of the other persons who knew it earlier but who were not deceased.

Both earlier as well as more recent versions of the super-psi hypothesis have been criticized regularly through the years as a sort of catch-all position whereby even legitimate psi phenomena could be extended virtually indefinitely to cover almost any postulated phenomena with a wave of the hand. Former atheist Brown University philosopher C. J. Ducasse nonetheless accepted the afterlife thesis and remarked in a much-reprinted essay that “this hypothesis has to be stretched very far.”111 More forcefully, former Oxford University philosopher H. H. Price asserted that the “Super-ESP” view requires that some persons have “ESP powers of almost unlimited scope” necessitating “much greater than our other evidence about those capacities would suggest.” Then he added further, “I do not think we have much other evidence to suggest that this sort of thing can be done even by very gifted ESP subjects,” noting that similar problems also arise for the cosmic memory (more impersonal) view.112

More recently, similar critiques of these ideas have been raised repeatedly, even regarding the more carefully construed arguments made by Sudduth. Especially in more popular and less cautious publications, ESP suppositions from living persons sometimes seem to be expressed as if almost any information may be projected and obtained at will, with the “justification” being the mere suggestion that this or that person could be the source. When there is a relevant example, it is often stretched too far so that psi by living persons too often lacks its own empirical evidence, especially as related to specifically NDE evidential situations, as just noted by Ducasse and Price.

Further, these theses have been judged to engage in special pleading, preferring exceptionally contorted and often roundabout explanations without passing rigorous evidentiary standards themselves, and they may be unfalsifiable as well. Even Keith Augustine rather stunningly commented, “Faced with compelling evidence for veridical paranormal perception during out-of-body NDEs, I think that the burden of proof would fall on proponents of a rather ad hoc, unfalsifiable, and blanket super-ESP hypothesis to demonstrate otherwise.”113 It also has been charged that ESP by living persons seems to be treated by much easier standards, while survival cases are challenged with minute supposals. Accordingly, philosopher Stewart Kelly states that living psi views are too often “challenged epistemically.”114

Moreover, even given the reality of LAP, many more commentators have remarked that attributing corroborated NDEs to living ESP is a much less likely option. When evaluating whether LAP or survival explanations can account better for these specific NDE scenarios, one finds that the best of the 300 NDE cases mentioned in this chapter alone present far more indications that they pertain directly to and favor strongly the afterlife thesis as the origination of the information.

For example, the NDE phenomena most generally occur in conjunction with apparent death, are often reported during the time without measurable heart or brain activity, include observations being reported from vantage points above the body, and note data from perspectives that seemingly require such angles. Conversely, informa-tion gathered from the minds of the living are not the best explanations of a twelve-digit figure or other numbers located out of sight except from above, or dozens of surgical procedures reported from the top-down angle.115 Almost meaningless information like designs on shoelaces worn during life-and-death situations, specific though irrelevant words that were spoken, and so on also seems to be a poor candidate for remembrance and retrieval. What about unknown information, such as an important machine in an operating room that no one noticed was unplugged until after the NDEr told the medical staff later to check for themselves? Further, evidential NDEs that reportedly involved previously deceased persons, including postmortem visions, where the imparted information was unknown to apparently anyone until it was reported by these deceased individuals, would appear to be especially difficult for the LAP view.

Countless ESP scenarios can be supposed, and more evidential NDE cases can be rehearsed as well. But it remains that in the specific ND arena, the afterlife scenario provides better and more specific explanations, especially when the LAP supposals do not present the same depth, adaption, and degree of evidence that are demanded of the NDErs.116 While appreciating many details of Sudduth’s more academic thesis, Edward Kelly holds that the survival view is stronger, especially in some of the specific areas just mentioned, such as in the evidential cardiac arrest cases and with crisis apparitions. Kelly also thinks that Ducasse’s argument for an afterlife even responded adequately to the auxiliary hypotheses proposed by Sudduth.117 Additional critiques have also been leveled at this initial position.118

The nonnatural option also mentioned above frequently concedes the reality of psi data and even afterlife scenarios, though opting for impersonal versions of survival after death. Sometimes this view is compared to Buddhist or Hindu ideas.

However, there are multiple avenues in which the NDE cases such as those developed throughout this chapter (though not repeated here) strongly favor personal survival interpretations in both evidential as well as subjective categories. More heavily evidential scenarios virtually always involve personal contact points in the physical world. The continuity of selfhood is maintained throughout, in that the very same person who has the NDE observes the evidential details and then reports them later as a continuous whole. Deceased family members are observed and are recognized immediately without question. Key personal elements do not change in the relevant cardiac arrest scenarios with apparent loss of measurable brain input. This would extend as well to the so-called Peak in Darien cases, where this personal continuity is maintained with deceased loved ones who are also recognized though a number had died years before, with memories intact, and who then imparted crucial data that are confirmed later by the NDEr. Often the NDEr’s personal memories are enhanced considerably.

Other subjective reports are at least helpful as well, such as nonevidential cases where the NDEr regularly views their bodies from above and concludes that they are dead, or mothers glimpsing their newborn baby below, or knowing that they must return to raise their children at home. Many other meetings without verifiable data include deceased loved ones who are said to greet them and similar scenarios. But in these and other situations, the deep impressions are often emotional meetings consisting of joyous recognitions, meaning that the NDEr at least believed that these events were profoundly personal.

Additionally, there are major philosophical problems for those who conceive of the afterlife in impersonal terms—what sort of confirmation could even obtain here? In a truly impersonal state, how could losing oneself or passing beyond the personal realm ever be verified? Besides this lack of evidence, how could a subjective state even be reported later if “one” is truly unaware of “oneself”? At this point, an accusation of utilizing Western logic often ensues! However, the dilemma here simply remains—how to distinguish one’s afterlife view so as to both make some sense as well as establish reasons for one’s position to be viable. This surely ought to be of concern in a chapter that from the outset evaluates potential afterlife evidence! The catch-22 on totally impersonal afterlife positions is that there is a distinct shortage of reportable evidence available. But conversely, if evidence is remembered and claimed afterwards, then some distinctions are being made by persons and the state is not totally impersonal.119 An additional point is that it is regularly denied that Eastern religions teach truly impersonal afterlife views in the first place!120

Granted, NDEs by themselves cannot determine the longevity of consciousness after death—this topic proceeds beyond this essay in that not even evidential NDEs are that far-reaching. Peak in Darien cases reported from many years later perhaps provide a hint. But at best, this is not eternal life. Additional indicators have been pursued in this regard, such as by Christians who attribute these beliefs to Jesus’s resurrection and its corollary arguments.121 Regardless, impersonal afterlife beliefs are not evidenced in the sense treated in this essay, so they do not help in establishing an impersonal afterlife.

At every turn, then, NDE data are quite personal. Truly impersonal afterlife beliefs do not produce verifiable evidence concerning that actual state, let alone that which approaches the degree of NDE corroboration. Further, the claim of impersonal afterlife distinctions is betrayed seriously in philosophical and scientific terms at more than one point.

Conclusion

The available evidence for NDEs seems clear enough to establish their evidential reality. Is one view to be favored above others according to this NDE evidence, with regard to the most likely concept of human nature? Options have been discussed in the NDE literature, for instance, by philosopher Mark Woodhouse.122 Some have argued more directly for the connection between NDEs and substance dualism.123

For starters at least, it seems safe to say that a very common impression among scholars and experiencers alike is that aspects of this research, such as the NDEr’s perception of leaving their body and looking down at it from above impresses many to posit some sort of a dualist perspective regarding one’s self and consciousness. This would seem to result from the manifestation of material and immaterial aspects of the self.124 That the NDEr identifies herself with the location of her consciousness up above, often without even initially recognizing the identity of the body below, furthers this notion.

While this seems to make the most sense of the present data, it has occasionally been pointed out that sometimes the remote viewing of the corroborated information by the stationary NDEr could favor more of a unified notion of the body, though this appears to be a minority position and it is seldom addressed. The NDE notions do provide some helpful empirical hints, and dualistic concepts often take key roles in the discussions to the extent that these issues are discussed.

Another major aspect seems clearly to emerge from these discussions as well. It often appears that the major underlying issue in these matters is very frequently not about straightforward dialogues regarding where the best evidence lies but is more about a momentous clash between worldviews. It quite often makes far more difference which position the debater already favored before the beginning of the discussion. If this is accurate, then it seems that even strong evidential considerations are less likely to change minds. In fact, once minds are made up, it is often simply amazing what sort of responses are often preferred just to keep from entertaining even the possibility of an afterlife.

For example, naturalistic worldviews have shown many signs in recent years of having major foundational fissures. Yet, it appears that many naturalists would say or do anything to keep from conceding one of the foremost planks in their platforms, such as the initial moments of an afterlife, which concerns the vast majority of the evidential accounts that have been addressed here. But ignoring the quickly mounting data regarding corroborated NDE incidents, or simply responding with guffaws to avoid such information, fails to refute the NDE argument.

Nonnaturalist options that question or deny a personal afterlife are held as well and have already been discussed above in some detail. While some of these views hold various areas in common with positions that espouse an afterlife, the personal view was found to be more favored by the evidence.125

Of the dozens of cardiac arrest examples mentioned or listed in this essay, a number included rather incredible evidential corroboration of observed details after the measurable cessation of heartbeat, cortical brain waves, and even lower-brain stoppage just slightly afterward. In other words, some NDE cases occurred as nearly as can be ascertained during the specific time during which each of these heart and brain processes were apparently nonfunctioning or had flatlined.126

These brain-termination stages occur roughly in tandem, an exceptionally brief time apart. Thereafter, the presence of meticulous and sequential evidenced reports have followed from the environment where the patient was located. On other occasions, confirmed details were observed from a distance away, clearly beyond the range of even a healthy patient’s physical senses. Adding to the mix have been reported corroboration from meetings with long-deceased friends and loved ones that were accompanied by additional, unknown information. A few cases also have been gathered from those who were blind, as well as other NDEs that appear to have been shared, witnessed, or corroborated by healthy onlookers, and so on.

This discussion encompassed more than just a few intriguing cases here and there. Clearly, so many multiple alternative explanations and extenuating “what if” scenarios would have to obtain to explain these hundreds of relevant cases, that naysayers rapidly reach a difficult impasse.

Additionally, alternative rejoinders clearly have not made as many gains in the most recent conversations. In fact, it could be argued that the number of medical NDE studies centering on alternative theses have largely become less plentiful in recent years, with the majority of essays clearly allowing for the possibility, if not the likelihood, of the NDE data. Further, when the NDE thesis is critiqued, too often comparatively little attention is devoted to the corroborative accounts anyway, and especially not to the best-established examples. This is very intriguing, especially when both sides in this debate, including some of the key opponents, have conceded the crucial importance of explaining the best-evidenced claims. When studying the various NDE accounts, especially those that were often investigated in demanding detail, the many cases across the spectrum are so exceptional that the ones left out of this study could almost as easily have replaced those that were included, with minimal loss of good data! There is simply a plethora of evidential cases backed by strong corroboration.

After all, these corroborated cases are precisely the keys to refuting both the natural and nonnatural alternatives to the NDE conclusions drawn here. The bottom line, then, appears to be this: these competing theses apparently do not come close to successfully explaining the well over 300 evidential cases narrated or listed here, especially the weightier sorts like those that have been identified above. These latter examples pack far more punch than do their alternate counterparts.127 This is precisely why, when speaking of the cardiac arrest cases accompanied by corroborated data, Rivas, Dirven, and Smit assert, “It is for this reason that the reliability of the kind of case that appears in this chapter is so fiercely challenged by materialists.”128 These authors add that if this domino falls, the critics know that their cause at this point is lost.129 Even while attempting not to overstate the strength of the overall case, major researchers have rated the NDE data as indicating the probable reality of consciousness at least beyond the initial cessation of heart and brain function.130

This is the meaning of the clear line in the sand mentioned above. It certainly seems as though the naturalistic and nonnaturalist responses above possess far less explanatory power, and their critiques are far more ad hoc. It often appears that those who hold opposed positions chiefly desire to preserve their worldview commitments at all costs no matter what, often featuring a strong dislike of any “spiritual” or “religious” options. But one thing seems clear: the alternative positions do not fare well when attempting to refute the hundreds of NDE evidential cases that rely on a core of rather minimal evidence. Hence, the alternative views are by far the weaker explanations here; it does not even appear to be a close comparison.131

Notes

1 A portion especially of the initial evidential section is edited and adapted from my essay “Evidential Near-Death Experiences,” in The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism, ed. Jonathan Loose, Angus J. L. Menuge, and J. P. Moreland (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018), 227–46.

2 Besides these articles, Augustine develops similar ideas against dualism and the afterlife, along with Yonatan I. Fishman, in “The Dualist’s Dilemma: The High Cost of Reconciling Neuroscience with a Soul,” in The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death, ed. Michael Martin and Augustine (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), 203–92, such as 203–4, 211–26, 253–71, 274, 277. Likewise, John Martin Fischer and Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin, Near-Death Experiences: Understanding Visions of the Afterlife (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Less assertive than Augustine and Fishman is the essay by Mitchell-Yellin and Fischer, “The Near-Death Experience Argument against Physicalism: A Critique,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 21 (2014): 158–83, especially where possible concessions are made to the NDE argument (158–59, 163–69, 171–73, 180–82). Also Fischer, “Near-Death Experiences: To the Edge of the Universe,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 27 (2020): 166–91. Responses in the same issue of this journal that also emphasize the crucial importance of the corroborative NDE cases were made by Janice Miner Holden and M. Woollacott, “Reasonable People Can Disagree: A Response to ‘Near-Death Experiences: To the Edge of the Universe,’” Journal of Consciousness Studies 27 (2020); and Joseph Komrosky, “Challenging Physicalism with a Logical Analysis of Evidence for Near-Death Experiences with Out-of-Body Experiences,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 27 (2020).

3 Keith Augustine, “Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 25 (2007): 213–34.

4 Keith Augustine, “Near-Death Experiences with Hallucinatory Features,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 26 (2007): esp. 3–10, 17–30.

5 Keith Augustine, “Psychophysiological and Cultural Correlates Undermining a Survivalist Interpretation of Near-Death Experiences,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 26 (2007): 90–122.

6 Keith Augustine, “‘Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?’ Defended,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 25 (2007): specifically 268–70. Michael Potts’s study, cited by Augustine, is “The Evidential Value of Near-Death Experiences for Belief in Life after Death,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 20 (2002): 250–51.

7 Such as Bruce Greyson, “Comments on ‘Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?,’” Journal of Near-Death Studies 25 (2007): 237–38.

8 Augustine, “Does Paranormal Perception Occur,” 264, 269, 280.

9 Augustine, 269.

10 Susan Blackmore, Dying to Live: Near-Death Experiences (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1993), 113, 125, 128, 262–63.

11 Augustine, “Does Paranormal Perception Occur,” 230–34.

12 Incidentally, in what Augustine terms a “hardly surprising development,” he ends this discussion by commenting that distant prayer “has absolutely no effect on the health of hospitalized patients,” as if to suggest that these prayer examples are “similar” (his word) and supportive of the lack of NDE results. Augustine, 234. Strangely enough, Augustine fails to mention several major peer-reviewed, double-blind prayer studies that oppose his comment here, published in medical journals before the appearance of his articles but which produced excellent results, such as Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer,”826–29 (see chap. 8, n. 83). Rather stunningly in the “Abstract” to this medical journal essay, Byrd declares, “These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU” (826). Cf. also Byrd with Sherrill, “On a Wing and a Prayer” (see chap. 8, n. 83), where Byrd likewise notes the statistically significant improvement in twenty-one of twenty-six monitored categories for the patients who received prayer (16)! See also Harris et al., “Remote, Intercessory Prayer,” 2273–78 (see chap. 8, n. 83). Moreover, Candy Gunther Brown approvingly notes these two studies along with other relevant research items in her volume Testing Prayer, esp. chaps. 2–6. This volume is endorsed on the dust cover by one present and another former member of the Harvard Medical School. This last point is not made to somehow “demonstrate” this thesis by citing key claims on its behalf, because such a conclusion would not follow, but rather to forestall the objection that findings such as these are somehow religious propaganda of some sort. Again, each of these medical articles was published before Augustine’s comments.

13 Michael B. Sabom, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation (New York: Harper and Row, 1982), 86.

14 Kenneth Ring and Madelaine Lawrence, “Further Evidence for Veridical Perception During Near-Death Experiences,” Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11 (1993): 223–29.

15 Some noncrucial details have been purposely changed so as not to share personal items.

16 Many precise details are reported in Titus Rivas, Anny Dirven, and Rudolf H. Smit, The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences, ed. Janice Miner Holden, trans. Wanda J. Boeke (Durham, NC: International Association for Near-Death Studies, 2016), 105–9.

17 Melvin Morse with Paul Perry, Closer to the Light: Learning from Children’s Near-Death Experiences (New York: Random House, 1990), particularly 3–9.

18 Morse with Perry, 32–33.

19 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 109–12 (emphasis added).

20 Melvin Morse with Paul Perry, Transformed by the Light: The Powerful Effect of Near-Death Experiences on People’s Lives (New York: Random House, 1994), 201.

21 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 58–59.

22 Sabom, Recollections of Death, 86–115, also 64–75.

23 Bruce Greyson, “Comments on ‘Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?,’” 237–39.

24 Emily Williams Cook, Bruce Greyson, and Ian Stevenson, “Do Any Near-Death Experiences Provide Evidence for the Survival of Human Personality after Death? Relevant Features and Illustrative Case Reports,” Journal of Scientific Exploration 12 (1998): 399–400.

25 Janice Miner Holden, “Veridical Perception in Near-Death Experiences,” in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, ed. Janice Holden, Bruce Greyson, and Debbie James (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2009), 187–211. Holden’s chart along with the list of these careful improvements are all found on 193–99.

26 Kenneth Ring and Evelyn Elsaesser Valarino, Lessons from the Light: What We Can Learn from the Near-Death Experience (New York: Insight, 1998), chaps. 2–3, plus 224–26 present some even stunning cases.

27 Cook, Greyson, and Stevenson, “Survival of Human Personality after Death,” 384–99.

28 Sabom, Recollections of Death, chap. 7, plus 64–65.

29 Peter Fenwick and Elizabeth Fenwick, The Truth in the Light: Investigations of Over 300 Near-Death Experiences (London: Headline, 1995), 31–35.

30 Morse with Perry, Closer to the Light, 4–9, 24–26, 152–54; Melvin Morse, “Near-Death Experiences and Death-Related Visions in Children: Implications for the Clinician,” Current Problems in Pediatrics 24 (1994): 55–83.

31 Some of the sources cited by Holden at least seem to include still more cases, such as Morse, “Near-Death Experiences and Death-Related Visions in Children,” especially a few undescribed hints on 70–74; likewise in Morse and Perry, Closer to the Light, 32–36 (three examples), 51–55, 106–7 (two examples), 152–54. Additional cases are found in Morse with Perry, Transformed by the Light, 114–18 (two examples), 180–81, 201. After the publication of Holden’s excellent list, many more researchers have published additional evidenced NDE reports, as mentioned throughout this chapter, such as Chris Carter, Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2010); Long with Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife, which provides nine arguments for an afterlife based on NDE testimony, chaps. 3–11; Jeffrey Long with Paul Perry, God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking New Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience (New York: HarperCollins, 2016). An outstanding overview of sources, along with many evidential examples and responses to skeptical objections is provided by J. Steve Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven: A Brief Introduction in Plain English (Acworth, GA: Wisdom Creek, 2012). Holden has also been responsible for additional studies in these areas, one example of which is the excellent volume above that she edited, The Self Does Not Die (2016).

32 Further documentation is provided below. For now, the testimony of cardiologists and others is found in Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, esp. 55–58.

33 As well as outside the room in many of these instances, as documented below. Specific examples are provided in Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, esp. cases 3.6 (62), 3.7 (62–68), 3.8 (68), 3.9 (68–70), 3.10 (70–71), 3.11 (71–78), 3.12 (78–79), 3.13 (80), 3.14 (81), 3.15 (81–82), 3.16 (82–83), 3.17 (83–84), 3.18 (84–86), 3.19 (86–87), 3.20 (87–88), 3.21 (88–89), 3.22 (89–90), 3.24 (90–91), 3.25 (91–92), 3.26 (92), 3.27 (93), 3.28 (93–95), 3.29 (95–104), 3.30 (104–5), 3.31 (105–9), 3.32 (109–12), 3.33 (112–13), 3.34 (113–14), 3.35 (114–16), 3.36 (116–20).

34 Blackmore, Dying to Live, 125–33.

35 Kimberly Clark Sharp, “The Other Shoe Drops: Commentary on ‘Does Paranormal Perception Occur in Near-Death Experiences?,’” Journal of Near-Death Studies 25 (2007): 245–50; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 32–34; Greyson 2016, personal communication; Sharp, 1994, personal conversation (twice).

36 Blackmore, Dying to Live, 127–28.

37 Ring and Lawrence, “Further Evidence for Veridical Perception,” 226–27.

38 Morse, “Near-Death Experiences and Death-Related Visions in Children,” 61; Morse with Perry, Closer to the Light, 6–7; Morse with Perry, Transformed by the Light, 22–23.

39 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 42–43. The physician who investigated this case further was Barbara R. Rommer, Blessing in Disguise: Another Side of the Near-Death Experience (St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 2000), 5–7. Rommer asserted that Tony “was clinically dead for thirty minutes” (5) and mentioned this case under the heading “Objective Evidence.”

40 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 159–60, 165–67.

41 Bruce Greyson, Emily Williams Kelly, and Edward F. Kelly, “Explanatory Models for Near-Death Experiences,” in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation, ed. Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, and Debbie James (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2009), 230.

42 Bruce Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died: ‘Peak in Darien’ Experiences,” Anthropology and Humanism 35 (2010): 159–71.

43 Pim Van Lommel, R. van Wees, V. Meyers, and I. Efferich, “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands,” Lancet 358 (2001): 2039–45.

44 Penny Sartori, Paul Badham, and Peter Fenwick, “A Prospectively Studied Near-Death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 25 (2006): 69–84.

45 Cook, Greyson, and Stevenson, “Survival of Human Personality after Death,” 377–406.

46 Emily Williams Kelly, Bruce Greyson, and Ian Stevenson, “Can Experiences Near Death Furnish Evidence of Life after Death?,” Omega 40 (2000): 513–19.

47 Long with Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife, 208n9.

48 Morse with Perry, Transformed by the Light, such as 116–18, 180–81.

49 Sabom, Recollections of Death, 111–13.

50 Marvin Ford with Dave Balsiger and Don Tanner, On the Other Side (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1978), 178–80.

51 In Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, these examples include cases 3.13 (80–81), 3.15 (81–82), 3.22 (89–90), 3.31 (105–9), and 3.33 (112–13). Note that in each of these five examples, there were confirmed reports both in the room as well as outside of it, hence these cases were included in the earlier list (endnote 27) as well.

52 Some of this wide variety of additional cases includes more accounts in Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die: cases 2.2 (31–32), 2.5 (35–36), 2.6 (36–37), 2.12 (42–43), 3.32 (109–12), 5.5 (140–41), 7.3 (159–60), cf. 3.1 (58–59).

53 Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died,” 162. There are some similarities here to Emily Williams Kelly, “Near-Death Experiences with Reports of Meeting Deceased People,” Death Studies 25 (2001): 229–49, esp. 239.

54 Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died,” 162–69.

55 Kenneth Ring, Life at Death: A Scientific Investigation of the Near-Death Experience (New York: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan, 1980), 207–8; Eben Alexander, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2012), 162–64, 168–69; Morse, Transformed by the Light, 114–15; editor John Myers includes at least one older, anecdotal example that involved a total of three persons who died at the same time in various parts of the United States, with the details being confirmed in follow-up investigating; see Voices from the Edge of Eternity (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1971), 97–99. Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland also reported earlier a number of these same cases; see Beyond Death, 162–64 (see chap. 4, n. 37); see also the earlier edition, Immortality: The Other Side of Death (Nashville: Nelson, 1992), 78–80.

56 Pim Van Lommel, “About the Continuity of Our Consciousness,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 550 (2004): 122.

57 Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died,” 167.

58 Bruce Greyson, After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond (New York: Macmillan, 2021), 132–33.

59 Such as Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, case 5.5 (140–41); Van Lommel, “About the Continuity of Our Consciousness,” 122; Maurice Rawlings, Beyond Death’s Door (Nashville: Nelson, 1978), 17–23.

60 In Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, case 5.5 (140–41). During her NDE, the cardiac-arrested person reported being with a brother she did not know she had but was told subsequently that he had died approximately thirty or more years earlier. In Rawlings, Beyond Death’s Door, 17, 21, the cardiac-arrested individual reported meeting the deceased person who had died about forty-seven years previously, though the NDEr had never met or even seen a photograph of the person, but identified her immediately when shown a group photo. Van Lommel’s previous account concerned an NDEr who had met and correctly identified his biological father, whom he had previously known nothing about and who had been deceased for many years. See “About the Continuity of Our Consciousness,” 122. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross relates one of her cases of a girl who recounted meeting a brother she did not know she had, who she found out later had died twelve years earlier; see On Children and Death (New York: Macmillan, 1983), 208; see also Kübler-Ross, On Life after Death (Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed, 2008), 28. Alexander explains that during his NDE, he had met his own biological sister who had died as an adult some ten years earlier, though he had not previously known that due to his adoption as a child and having lived with another family. See Alexander, Proof of Heaven, 162–64, 168–69.

61 Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died,” 169.

62 Morse, Transformed by the Light, 168–70, 173–80, where many different sorts of accounts are narrated; Morse, “Near-Death Experiences and Death-Related Visions in Children,” 72; L. Houlberg, “Coming out of the Dark,” Nursing 22, no. 2 (February 1992); Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence, particularly 66–68.

63 Morse, Transformed by the Light, 170–74; Morse, “Near-Death Experiences and Death-Related Visions in Children,” 72–73.

64 Raymond Moody with Paul Perry, Glimpses of Eternity: Sharing a Loved One’s Passage from This Life to the Next (New York: Guideposts, 2010), 11–12, 77, 80, 81. The story is also retold in Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence, particularly 66–67.

65 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, case 3.32 (109–12).

66 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, containing two examples: case 4.3 (129–32) and case 7.6 (165–67); Morse, Closer to the Light, two more possible examples: 127–28, 130–32; Morse, Transformed by the Light, for a half dozen more possible accounts, 174–80.

67 Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, “Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Sight,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 16 (1997): 101–47. The account of Vicki’s NDE is reported on 108–12, 114.

68 A more detailed and slightly more evidential study is presented in Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper, Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind (Palo Alto, CA: William James Center for Consciousness Studies, 1999), especially the treatment of the visual aspects (chap. 4, 41–96) and corroborative evidence (chap. 5, 97–120). Vicki’s initial case above, where she described her two deceased friends, is found on 41–59 (esp. 45–47), 50–51, 55, including a limited amount of confirmation.

69 Ring and Cooper, 109–20, quotations on 115, 117, 109 respectively.

70 Ring and Cooper, “Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind,” with these two cases on pages 112–14 and 120–22 respectively.

71 Ring and Cooper, 124. Similar conclusions are also found in Ring and Cooper, Mindsight, 97, 120 (the latter chiefly concerning Nancy’s case).

72 Such as Miller, who provides some cases drawn especially from Van Lommel plus Ring and Cooper. See Near-Death Experiences, 70–73.

73 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, xxvii.

74 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, 126.

75 Confirmed in personal correspondence from editor Janice Miner Holden, 2016.

76 As noted above, a number of these cases were also cited in Habermas, “Evidential Near-Death Experiences,” 238–39, along with several cases drawn from my own research collection that have been added here. These totals reflect only the counts that are mentioned or cited in this chapter, rather than a total from all NDE literature.

77 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, case 2.6 (36–37).

78 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, case 2.5 (35–36).

79 As confirmed in an interview afterward.

80 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, case 3.11 (71–78), where the long answers are written out in great detail.

81 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, case 3.9 (68–70).

82 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, case 2.14 (44).

83 As in Burris Jenkins with Jess E. Weiss, “I Was an Atheist—Until I Died,” in The Vestibule, ed. Jess E. Weiss (New York: Pocket, 1972), 29–39. Burris’s account involved some mild confirmation of the physical world (34, 36) along with a conversion from atheism to Christianity (35–37). Perhaps the best known of these testimonies from a former atheist to Christianity is the truly fascinating account by Howard Storm, My Descent into Death: A Second Chance at Life (New York: Doubleday, 2005).

84 Nancy Evans Bush, a recognized authority in this subarea of NDE study, helpfully delineates several types of negative or hellish NDEs. These might include a range from frightening or disturbing NDE elements, to experiences of despair and meaninglessness, all the way to rather classic hellfire reports, including demons and dark pits (71–72). Various studies reported by Bush report quite a wide range of the percentages of those who experience these and similar negative states. The actual, reported research extends anywhere from several reports with no such negative cases at all, to percentage measurements of these distressing cases such as the following: 12 percent, 15 percent (2 studies), 18 percent, 20 percent, 23 percent, 29 percent, 33 percent, 60 percent, and two overviews where the numbers were apparently much higher but where percentages were not provided. These accounts included varying numbers of participants, with Bush noting that surveyors recognized that many who had these experiences often “notoriously” avoided listing or discussing them (70), that at least some early researchers themselves did not want to ask or know about these distressing examples (71), and that these experiences “are underreported” (81)! Bush’s conclusion is that the actual percentages of negative reports are possibly best estimated as being somewhere in the mid- to high-teens (81). See Bush, “Distressing Western Near-Death Experiences: Finding a Way through the Abyss,” in Holden, Greyson, and James, Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, 63–86. Another more recent treatment that reviews what is known about these phenomena is Nancy Evans Bush and Bruce Greyson, “Distressing Near-Death Experiences: The Basics,” in The Science of Near-Death Experiences, ed. John C. Hagan (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2017), 93–101.

85 Bush also seems to state at least a similar conclusion in “Finding a Way through the Abyss,” 81, as do Bush and Greyson, “Distressing Near-Death Experiences,” 100.

86 Comments such as these may be observed in the research of many observers, such as Sabom, Recollections of Death, 184–86; Michael Sabom, Light and Death: One Doctor’s Fascinating Account of Near-Death Experiences (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 134–37, 140–46, 213–14; Bush, “Finding a Way through the Abyss,” 100; Morse, Transformed by the Light, 119–20; Long with Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife, 158; Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence, 41, 97–98, 148, 195n23; Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, 178–80. Cf. Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldsson, At the Hour of Death (New York: Avon, 1977), 92, 193–94, 198. A number of authors in Holden, Greyson, and James, Handbook of Near-Death Experiences, also affirm these items, including the following: Bush, “Finding a Way through the Abyss,” 69, 81; Janice Miner Holden, Jeffrey Long, and B. Jason MacLurg, “Characteristics of Western Near-Death Experiences,” 120; Allan Kellehear, “Census of Non-Western Near-Death Experiences to 2005: Observations and Critical Reflections,” 135, 140–42, 150; cf. 130–31; Greyson, Kelly, and Kelly, “Explanatory Models for Near-Death Experiences,” 148, 214–15. Two critics with opposite perspectives from one another also agree with many of the cultural conclusions mentioned here: H. Leon Greene, If I Should Wake before I Die: The Medical and Biblical Truth about Near-Death Experiences (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 109–10, 113–14, 204; Blackmore, Dying to Live, 115–20, 134. For detailed critiques of both Greene and Blackmore, see Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, chap. 9, particularly 200–218.

87 Such as Bush and Greyson, “Distressing Near-Death Experiences,” 100; Long with Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife, 141, 169; Morse, Transformed by the Light, 119; cf. Osis and Haraldsson, At the Hour of Death, 190, 193.

88 Sabom, Recollections of Death, 238–39; Ring, Life at Death, 238–39; Bush and Greyson, “Distressing Near-Death Experiences,” 100.

89 Sabom, “The Shadow of Death (Part Two),” in the Christian Research Journal 26 (2003): 42–51, quotation on 46; cf. the synopsis on page 45. Part one of this article appears in Christian Research Journal 26 (2003): 12–21.

90 Sabom, Light and Death, 214.

91 Additional related research has been cited by Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, esp. 178–80, 217–18.

92 So the presence of subjective aspects here is of no help to various postmodern or other efforts to overemphasize these interpretive elements in all religious or other respects, since the strong evidence for an afterlife of some sort would provide one of several exceptionally powerful building blocks in such religious discussions.

93 As seen in Russell’s often-anthologized 1927 lecture, “Why I Am Not a Christian,” in Pathways to Philosophy: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. Douglas W. Shrader and Ashok K. Malhotra (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), 300–308, especially 300–301, 304. Similar ideas are mentioned in Russell, Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind (New York: Avon, 1960), 19–21.

94 Discussions of various perspectives are contained in the following studies: Blackmore, Dying to Live, 4–8, 50–53, 106–12, 114, 202–25, 261–64; Michael N. Marsh, Out-of-Body and Near Death Experiences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), esp. chaps. 7–9; Michael Marsh, “The Near-Death Experience: A Reality Check?,” Humanities 5, (2016): 1–25; Edward F. Kelly, review of Out-of-Body and Near-Death Experiences by Michael N. Marsh, in Journal of Scientific Exploration 24 (2010): 729–37; Greyson, Kelly, and Kelly, “Explanatory Models for Near-Death Experiences,” 214–34; Ring, Life at Death, 206–17; Sabom, Recollections of Death, 151–78; Morse with Perry, Closer to the Light, 183–93; Miller, Near-Death Experiences as Evidence, 31–48, 105–8; cf. Osis and Haraldsson, At the Hour of Death, 45–59. The critiques and responses by Augustine and many NDE researchers have already been addressed earlier in this chapter.

95 On Sabom’s testing these NDErs’ perceptions, see Recollections of Death, 113–15.

96 Sabom, 71, 113–15, 184.

97 Sartori, The Near-Death Experiences of Hospitalized Intensive Care Patients: A Five Year Clinical Study (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 2008); also Long, Evidence of the Afterlife, 71.

98 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 120–23; Long, Evidence of the Afterlife, 80.

99 Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, “Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest: Visions of a Dying Brain or Visions of a New Science of Consciousness,” Resuscitation 52 (2002): 5–11, particularly 7.

100 See especially Jaap W. De Vries, P. F. Bakker, G. H. Visser, J. C. Diephuis, and A. C. van Huffelen, “Changes in Cerebral Oxygen Uptake and Cerebral Electrical Activity During Defibrillation Threshold Testing,” Anesthesia and Analgesia 87 (1998): 16–20; M. J. Aminoff, M. M. Scheinman, J. C. Griffin, J. M. Herre, “Electrocerebral Accompaniments of Syncope Associated with Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias,” Annals of Internal Medicine 108 (1988): 791–96; R. Pana, L. Hornby, S. D. Shemie, S. Dhanani, J. Teitelbaum, “Time to Loss of Brain Function and Activity During Circulatory Arrest,” Journal of Critical Care 34 (2016): 77–83, particularly 77, 82; Pim Van Lommel, “Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain: A New Concept about the Continuity of our Consciousness Based on Recent Scientific Research on Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest,” World Futures 62 (2006): 134–51, esp. 138–41, 148–49; Van Lommel et al., “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest,” 2039–45, particularly 2043–44; Bruce Greyson, “Western Scientific Approaches to Near-Death Experiences,” Humanities 4 (2015): 775–96; Greyson, personal communication, August 21, 2016; Parnia and Fenwick, “Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest,” esp. 5–7, 9–10; Sabom, “The Shadow of Death (Part Two),” 15, 19, 21n39; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 55, 58, 124–25; Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 154, 156–57; Long with Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife, 102, cf. 104.

101 Van Lommel, “Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain,” esp. 138, 141; Parnia and Fenwick, “Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest,” 6, 9; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, esp. 55, 124, according to comments from cardiologists.

102 Greyson, personal communication, August 21, 2016; Sabom, personal communication, 2006; Van Lommel, “Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain,” 138–39; Van Lommel et al., “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest,” 2044; Parnia and Fenwick, “Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest,” 6, 9–10; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 55–56.

103 Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died”; Kelly, “Near-Death Experiences with Reports of Meeting Deceased People.”

104 Augustine, “Does Paranormal Perception Occur,” 69.

105 Blackmore, Dying to Live, 262; Potts, “Evidential Value of Near-Death Experiences,” 250–51.

106 To their credit in the sources immediately above, Blackmore, Potts, and Augustine, to greater or lesser extents, each acknowledge that future evidence could continue to challenge their theses as well.

107 The claim may be made that this evaluation is too positive, with NDE testimonies being taken too straightforwardly. Yet much care has been taken throughout to employ dozens of caveats. Further, it has been explained that all evaluations here are probabilistic in nature. The critical comebacks have also been entertained. In probabilistic terms, it is difficult to know what else can be concluded here.

108 One example is Michael Sudduth, A Philosophical Critique of Empirical Arguments for Postmortem Survival (New York: Macmillan, 2016).

109 As with some examples in Edward F. Kelly, Adam Crabtree, and Paul Marshall, eds., Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015).

110 Sudduth, Philosophical Critique, outlined on 18–20. It should be noted that Sudduth eschews the “super-psi” moniker as being a rather derogatory reference.

111 C. J. Ducasse, “Is Life after Death Possible?” (1948), in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger, eds., Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, 4th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1984), 389.

112 H. H. Price, “Problem of Life after Death” (1968), in William L. Rowe and William J. Wainwright, eds., Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 3rd ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1998), 534.

113 Augustine, “Does Paranormal Perception Occur,” 280. Similar comments are made by Augustine and Fishman, “Dualist’s Dilemma,” 282n52.

114 Besides Ducasse, Price, and Augustine, see also the careful nuance in detail provided by David Kelly, review of A Philosophical Critique of Empirical Arguments for Postmortem Survival by Michael Sudduth, in Journal of Scientific Exploration 30 (2016): 591–92; the many details provided in the discussion by Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 226–32, 236–37; correspondence with Stewart Kelly referring to Sudduth and similar views, dated February 21, 2021.

115 It is relevant here that even though the members of Sabom’s control group were veteran open-heart survivors sometimes with vast experiences with the relevant procedures, their descriptions were significantly less accurate than those who reported that they actually viewed their own situations from above; see Sabom, Recollections of Death, 83–86.

116 Ducasse, “Is Life After Death Possible?,” 382, 387–89; Price, “Problem of Life after Death,” 533–38; Beauregard and O’Leary, Spiritual Brain, cf. 168–71 with 152–56; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 221–22, 227–30, 234–36; Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, 191–97; correspondence from philosophers who research in these areas, including William Hasker, January 20, 2021; J. P. Moreland, January 18, 2021; Jeffrey Koperski, January 22, 20/21, and Stewart Kelly, January 22, 2021.

117 In David Kelly, review of A Philosophical Critique (by Sudduth), 591–92, 594.

118 Other evaluations can only be sketched here. Some agree that this view involving living psi could be exceptionally difficult for naturalists to explain. But researchers have also remarked that dualists need not have problems with the majority of the LAP assertions. Worldview perspectives must likewise be addressed because positions favoring theism on other grounds, for example, could alone provide additional pathways though these charges. Some philosophers have issues with the configuration of Bayes’s Theorem in that how prior probabilities are figured could skew Sudduth’s thesis by themselves. Various of these comments are found in Augustine, “Does Paranormal Perception Occur,” 264, 269, 280; J. P. Moreland, “The Soul and Near-Death Experiences: A Case for Substance Dualism,” in Beck and Licona, Raised on the Third Day, chap. 2; William Hasker’s treatment in the Notre Dame Philosophical Review: An Electronic Journal, November 30, 2015, https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-myth-of-an-afterlife-the-case-against-life-after-death/; David Kelly, review of A Philophical Critique (by Sudduth), 588, 593; philosopher Neal Grossman as cited by Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 228–32; also 227, 234; additional correspondence from Hasker, January 20, 2021; J. P. Moreland, January 18, 2021; Jeffrey Koperski, January 22, 2021, and Stewart Kelly, January 22, 2021.

119 Quite notably, even from a very sympathetic scientific position, physicist Fritjof Capra states that science cannot go as far as this impersonal realm. This critique is clear—we cannot have it both ways. The Tao of Physics, 2nd ed. (New York: Bantam, 1983), esp. 127–29. As J. P. Moreland states from a different angle, “The epistemological argument, if successful, shows that the denial of an enduring self is guilty of self-referential inconsistency.” See Moreland, “An Enduring Self: The Achilles Heel of Process Philosophy,” Process Studies 17 (1988): 193–99; see also William Hasker, “Resurrection and Mind-Body Identity: Can There Be Eternal Life Without a Soul?,” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 (1975): 319–25; Beauregard and O’Leary, Spiritual Brain, 153–57.

120 Rune E. A. Johansson, The Psychology of Nirvana (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 13, 55–59, 112, 130–32; Frederick H. Holck, ed., Death and Eastern Thought (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), 14–16, 101–2, 121–30, 193–94; Farnáz Ma‘súmián, Life after Death: A Study of the Afterlife in World Religions (Oxford: Oneworld, 1995), 50, 116–17; Harold Cowan, ed., Life after Death in World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), 76, 89; Christopher Jay Johnson and Marsha G. McGee, eds., How Different Religions View Death and Afterlife (Philadelphia: Charles, 1991), 44–48, 52, 93, 170, 195–201, 209–16, 224, 324; cf. other religious views, 195–201, 209–16.

121 Such as Habermas, Risen Jesus and Future Hope, chaps. 4–6 (see chap. 2, n. 33). As a side note, the argument for Jesus’s resurrection and beyond that in this source is based on the “minimal facts” that are well evidenced and hence accepted as historical even by very skeptical biblical specialists. In its own way, the argument here for evidential NDEs has likewise been based on a minimal foundation of data that favor after-death consciousness.

122 Mark Woodhouse, “Near-Death Experiences and the Mind-Body Problem,” Anabiosis: The Journal for Near-Death Studies 1 (1981): 57–65.

123 Such as Moreland, “Soul and Near-Death Experiences,” 15–36; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 238.

124 Woodhouse, “Near-Death Experiences and the Mind-Body Problem,” 61–63.

125 See Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, chaps. 8–9 for more details, including specific critiques of some “nonnaturalistic” options.

126 Specific details are reported in Van Lommel et al., “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest,” 2043–44; Parnia and Fenwick, “Near Death Experiences in Cardiac Arrest,” 6–10; Van Lommel, “Near-Death Experience, Consciousness, and the Brain,” 138–42, 148; Sabom, “Shadow of Death (Part Two),” 15, 19, 21, endnote 39; Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 125; Long with Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife, 102.

127 See Long’s insightful comments at this point in God and the Afterlife, 194.

128 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, Self Does Not Die, 123.

129 Rivas, Dirven, and Smit, 240.

130 Sabom’s conclusion is that this overall case is “highly probable”; see Sabom, “Shadow of Death (Part Two),” 50. Greyson has also made some strong evidential statements, as we have seen in Greyson, “Seeing Dead People Not Known to Have Died,” 169. Long makes some of the strongest comments of all in Evidence of the Afterlife, 124, 201–2, including that the overall evidence for God and an afterlife is “overwhelming” (196).

131 The author wishes to thank longtime friends and NDE researchers Bruce Greyson, Mike Sabom, and Jan Holden for their exceptionally helpful discussions, information, and bibliographic support through the years as well as during this research, though without necessarily implying their agreement with me in the comments here.

Appendix 2

Outlined Data in Favor of the Minimal Facts

Crucifixion (12 total)

1. Multiple attestation of sources
2. Early sources (especially creeds)
3. Indirect eyewitness testimony
4. Limited dissimilarity

5. Embarrassment

1. Aramaic terms (Jesus forsaken on cross)

6. Enemy attestation (Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders)

7. Multiple forms

8. Coherence

9. Medical data (severe treatment, asphyxiation, shock, congestive heart failure)

10. Postmortem chest wound (+ Roman confirmation)

11. Strauss Critique

1. naturalistic theories fail

12. Shroud of Turin (?)

Disciples’ Experiences, Thought to Be Appearances of the Risen Jesus (13)

1. Eyewitness testimony (such as 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8)

2. Early creedal traditions

3. Apostolic connection to the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor 15:11 following 15:3–7)

4. Paul’s confirmation of the Gospel content with Peter and James (Gal 1:18–20)

5. Paul’s second visit fourteen years later, meeting with Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:1–10)

6. Numerous group appearances

1. naturalistic theories fail

7. Multiple attestation
8. Multiple forms
9. Embarrassment
10. Limited dissimilarity
11. Aramaic wording
12. Enemy attestation

13. The Empty Tomb may provide additional confirmation

Early Proclamation (19)

1. Layer: Appearance experiences

2. Layer: Initial teaching (homologia)

3. Layer: Likely “Pre-Pauline 1” creedal traditions

4. Layer: Paul’s experience on the way to Damascus

5. Layer: Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem—dialogues with Peter and James (Gal 1:18–19)

6. Layer: Paul’s second visit—dialogues with Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:1–10)

7. Layer: “Pre-Pauline 2” creeds after Paul’s conversion

8. Layer: New Testament Epistles (single attestation)

9. Layer: Gospels and Acts (single attestation)

10. Multiple attestation
11. Confirming testimony (1 Cor 15:11)
12. Multiple forms
13. Embarrassment
14. Dissimilarity
15. Aramaic words
16. Enemy attestation
17. Empty tomb probable (helps to confirm)

18. Groups of observers (“the twelve,” “all the apostles,” the “500,” cf. the women)

19. Jesus’s deity connected to the discussion and earliness

Transformation of Jesus’s Disciples (14)

1. Male disciples denied Jesus and fled

2. Disciples’ experiences as the impetus for their transformation

3. Conversion of James

4. Disciples immediately began preaching (homologia)

5. Oral and creedal traditions (including Acts sermon summaries)

6. Conversion of Paul

7. Paul’s two trips to Jerusalem—visits with Peter, James, and John (Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10)

8. Multiple attestation
9. Embarrassment
10. Enemy attestation

11. Extensive ministries: Peter, James, John, and Paul

1. decades of leadership in Acts and epistles

2. extracanonical Christian testimony

12. Repeated willingness to suffer and die

13. First-century texts for the martyrdoms of Paul, Peter, James, and John

14. Utilizing Bayes’ Theorem (McGrew and Swinburne)

Conversion of James, Jesus’s Brother (11)

1. James called an unbeliever before crucifixion (Mark 3:20–21, 31; 6:3–4; John 7:5)

2. Jesus’s appearance to James (1 Cor 15:7); with believers in Acts 1:14

3. Early testimony (Acts 1:15; 15:13–21)
4. James’s transformation
5. Multiple attestation
6. Multiple forms
7. Enemy/adversarial attestation
8. Embarrassment
9. James’s martyrdom (Josephus)
10. New Testament book of James (?)
11. James Ossuary (?)

Conversion and Life of the Church Persecutor Paul (11)

1. Zealous unbeliever before conversion (eyewitness testimony)

2. Jesus’s appearance to Paul (eyewitness)

3. Paul’s traveling partners as witnesses (Acts 9, 22, 26)

4. Early data

5. Paul’s Epistles and missions demonstrate transformation

1. extracanonical Christian sources (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp)

6. Multiple attestation

1. limited multiple forms

7. Embarrassment

8. Enemy attestation

9. Repeated willingness to suffer and martyrdom

10. Paul well-educated as Pharisee; prior training facilitates research

11. Failure of naturalistic theories

Total: 80 primary and secondary considerations plus other relevant factors on the six minimal facts (Note: Not all of these are evidences, and there is some overlap when the items refer to more than one fact; additional factors follow if subdetails are differentiated.)

Appendix 3

Summary Outline of the Second Six Known/Accepted Non-Minimal Facts Data

1. Jesus Was Buried (13 total)

1. Burial is multiply attested

1. also multiple forms

2. Very early, pre-Pauline Creedal sources and sermon summaries for Jesus’s burial

3. Indirect eyewitness testimony (Bauckham)

4. Greek word thaptō in creed means burial, not dumping

5. Pre-Markan passion narrative includes Jesus’s burial

6. Archaeological evidence of crucifixion victims

7. Embarrassing details

8. Jerusalem factor—the story could be checked out

9. Jews would bury even crucifixion victims (avoid desecration and eschatological relevance)

1. Romans permitted burial

10. The Jewish authorities would assure Jesus’s burial/whereabouts

11. Jesus’s followers would assure his burial

1. Joseph of Arimathea an obscure name

12. Enemy attestation from polemic indicating disciples stole the body

13. No competing accounts exist

2. Jesus’s Death Led the Disciples to Despair and Lose Hope (5)

1. Natural psychological response

2. Multiply attested

3. Embarrassing testimony of disciples’ denial and desertion

4. Limited dissimilarity

5. Possible eyewitness material

3. Empty Tomb (21)

1. Embarrassing testimony of the women being the first witnesses

2. Jerusalem factor, opposition would have checked

3. Multiple independent attestation

4. 1 Cor 15:3–4 implies an empty tomb

5. Acts 2:29–32 and 13:28–37 sermon summaries indicating an early empty tomb report

6. Likely pre-Markan passion tradition; empty tomb account could be included

7. Contemporary Jewish view primarily of bodily resurrection; New Testament view of bodily resurrection appearances

1. N. T. Wright: anastasis and egeiro

2. Cook: Paul and Gospels agree

8. Enemy Attestation seeking to explain empty tomb

1. Matt 27:62–66, Justin Martyr, Tertullian

9. Early traditions of Peter and John investigating

10. Semitisms in accounts

11. Potential eyewitnesses/obscure names (Bauckham)

12. Sunday as day of worship
13. Gospels as Greco-Roman bios
14. No tomb veneration or martyr cult

15. Little supernatural elaboration, few details

16. Lack of theological/apologetic development or use (dissimilarity)

17. Obscure names throughout accounts

18. Guards at tomb potentially an early pre-Matthean tradition (Kankaanniemi dissertation)

19. No early sources deny ET/no strong alternative accounts

20. Little reference to or nuance from Old Testament texts

21. Nazareth decree (?)

4. Resurrection Message at Center of Early Christian Preaching (6)

1. Resurrection mentioned in over 300 New Testament verses

2. Included as the key to the homologia in the crucial Gospel proclamation (Rom 10:9)

3. Early attestation in majority of creedal traditions (1 Cor 15:3–5)

4. Multiple forms

5. Multiply and independently attested

6. This message the basis of New Testament Christology

5. Resurrection Message Proclaimed Initially in Jerusalem (5)

1. Eyewitness testimony (Paul’s two discussions with three other apostles in Jerusalem)

2. Early attestation (Acts sermon summaries)

3. Multiple independent sources place proclamation in Jerusalem

4. Multiple forms

5. Plausibility/coherence

6. Christian Church Established and Grew with Sunday as the Primary Day of Worship (6)

1. Church meetings begin after Jesus’s resurrection

2. Eyewitness accounts of church meetings

3. Early sources

4. Sunday is referred to as the Lord’s day (also references to third and first days)

5. Multiple independent sources

6. Multiple forms

Total: 56 primary and secondary considerations plus other relevant factors on the six non-minimal, known/accepted facts (Note: Not all of these are evidences, and there is some overlap when the items refer to more than one fact. Additional factors follow if subdetails are differentiated.)

Author Index

A

Abraham, David, 78

Achtemeir, P. J., 837

Africanus, Julius, 183, 206

Akenson, Donald Harman, 82, 559, 578

Albright, William Foxwell, 897, 899

Alexander, Eben, 977, 980

Alexander, L. C. A., 837

Allison, Dale C., Jr., 1, 21, 25, 41, 43, 53, 80, 94–95, 139, 142, 155, 234, 300, 347, 350, 373–74, 380–81, 391, 394, 421, 424, 433, 435, 438, 444, 451, 479, 495–96, 511, 518, 524, 531, 554, 558, 578, 585, 604, 607, 611, 613–14, 618, 620, 622, 638, 641, 651, 673, 676, 678–79, 682, 684, 697, 713, 737, 739, 795, 868, 940, 945

Allison, Gregg R., 279

Alston, William P., 622, 783

Alsup, John E., 496, 512, 518, 609, 618, 713, 781, 785, 811–12, 845, 896

Al-Turki, A., 305

Aminoff, M. J., 995

Amiot, François, 180–81

Anderson, Charles C., 612

Anderson, J. N. D., 170, 174, 182, 206, 251, 270, 392, 507, 612, 705, 712, 955

Anderson, Paul N., 862

Andrey, T., 305

Ankersmit, Frank, 56, 62

Antonacci, Mark, 212, 340

Argyle, A. W., 899

Aristides, 921–22

Aristotle, 377, 894

Armstrong, Benjamin F., Jr., 232

Aslan, Reza, 940

Aufderheide, A. C., 309, 319–20, 332

Augustine, Keith, 963–66, 993, 999, 1001, 1003

Aune, David E., 164, 607

Avis, Paul, 516, 613, 623, 734, 745, 781

Ayer, A. J., 30, 33, 237

B

Baden, Michael, 310

Badham, Paul, 976

Baggett, David, 686

Bailey, Kenneth Ewing, 110, 269, 758–60

Bakker, P. F., 995

Balch, D. L., 837

Ball, D. A., 304

Balsiger, Dave, 976

Barbet, Pierre, 304–5, 310–12, 326

Barbour, R. S., 140

Barclay, John M. G., 610, 745

Barfield, Kenny, 875

Barker, Margaret, 745

Barnardo, D., 306

Barnett, Paul W., 19, 23, 79–80, 109, 188, 210, 267–68, 290, 348–49, 363, 377–78, 392, 422, 432, 451, 453, 455, 457, 459–60, 472–73, 490, 493, 495, 497–98, 503, 507, 509, 514–15, 609, 616, 627, 700–702, 733, 745, 757, 759, 784

Barrett, C. K., 188

Barr, Shawn M., 372

Barth, Gerhard, 622

Barth, Karl, 96, 137–38, 223, 369–70

Barth, Markus, 485–87

Barton, Stephen, 610, 615, 745, 780–81, 783, 812

Bartsch, Hans Werner, 138, 741

Basinger, David, 227, 229, 232, 234–35, 276, 952–53

Basinger, Randall, 232, 234–35

Basore, John W., 315

Bass, Justin W., 128, 144, 346, 436

Bauckham, Richard, 19, 45–46, 110, 118, 269–70, 286, 294–95, 354, 365, 371, 376, 380–81, 386, 392, 394–95, 413, 421, 443–44, 446, 448, 450–51, 454, 464–65, 481, 483, 495, 497–99, 503, 505, 509, 513, 517–18, 531, 561–62, 564–66, 608, 611, 626, 676–77, 692, 699, 731, 754, 756–62, 772, 785, 795, 861–63, 871–72, 897, 913, 915, 919, 924, 926

Bauer, Bruno, 157

Bauer, Walter, 197, 201

Bauman, Michael, 28

Baur, F. C., 434

Bayer, Hans, 713, 716, 719, 724

Bealby, J. T., 646

Beard, Charles, 31–33, 57, 64–65, 70, 74–75, 81, 237

Beasley-Murray, G. R., 903

Beauregard, Mario, 996, 1002, 1004

Becker, Carl L., 31–34, 57, 64–65, 70, 75, 81, 237

Beck, W. David, 90, 233, 340, 600, 950, 1003

Beckwith, Francis J., 231, 394, 538

Beilby, James K., 12, 24, 100, 162–64, 181, 350

Beliles, Mark A., 139

Benoit, Pierre, 600, 855

Bergeron, Joseph W., 304, 311, 326, 584

Berkhofer, Robert, 60

Berkouwer, G. C., 96

Berlin, Isaiah, 32, 81, 84

Bersgma, S., 304

Bettenson, Henry, 857, 917

Betz, Hans Dieter, 392, 490, 507, 558

Beyer, Hans F., 798

Beyer, Hermann Wolfgang, 466

Bird, Michael F., 170, 355–56, 365, 442, 467, 497–98, 608, 611, 912

Bishop, P., 304

Bjornard, Reidar B., 111

Blackmore, Susan, 965, 973–74, 991, 993, 999

Blake, Christopher, 32, 69, 81–82, 84, 132

Blinzer, Joseph, 194

Blomberg, Craig L., 101, 109, 224, 232, 265–68, 277, 347, 355, 358, 516, 610, 714, 863

Bloom, John A., 874

Blum, Edwin A., 305, 326

Bock, Darrell L., 97, 162, 164, 181, 207, 255, 268, 270, 355–56, 365, 411, 466, 524, 553, 600, 658, 701, 738, 813, 897–99

Bode, Edward Lynn, 607

Boeke, Wanda J., 951, 968

Boismard, Marie-Émile, 534

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 407, 516

Bordes, S., 305

Borg, Marcus J., 47, 52, 126, 138, 142, 248, 251–55, 258, 271, 273, 277, 279, 298, 301, 344, 347, 356, 359–60, 381, 398, 411, 444, 453, 496, 511, 518, 531, 578, 616, 660, 704, 715, 724, 738, 741, 746, 769, 954

Bornkamm, Günther, 138, 264, 742, 945

Bosanquet, F. C. T., 37

Bousset, Wilhelm, 374–76, 497, 603–4

Bowden, John, 24, 170, 181, 219, 375, 379, 386, 485, 683, 945

Bower, Bruce, 211, 630

Bowersock, G. W., 534

Bowman, Robert M., Jr., 268

Boyce, James, 900

Boyd, Gregory A., 609, 829

Braaten, Carl E., 726

Bream, H. N., 855

Breisach, Ernst, 19, 28, 31, 38, 45, 56, 58, 61, 63, 74–75, 78, 82, 405

Brenner, B., 304

Brodribb, William Jackson, 22, 45, 116, 168, 405, 702

Broer, Ingo, 613, 740

Bromiley, Geoffrey W., 24, 137, 243, 392

Brooks, Ron, 109

Brown, Candy Gunther, 252, 953, 966

Brown, Colin, 232, 745

Brown, Raymond E., 95, 108, 194, 207, 223, 253, 274, 321–23, 332–35, 341, 347, 353, 355, 369, 411, 468, 512–13, 516, 552–53, 607, 616, 622, 627, 653, 658, 661, 664, 672, 693, 698, 701, 705, 738, 778, 780, 798–99, 811–13, 818, 842, 854–55, 859–60, 862–65, 868, 871–73, 876, 896, 919, 945

Bruce, F. F., 109, 156, 166, 169, 172, 174, 178, 181–82, 184, 188, 194–95, 198, 205, 268, 289, 525, 713, 875, 898–99, 911, 923

Brunt, P. A., 113, 405

Bryan, Christopher, 608, 615, 620

Bryan, David J., 621

Büchsel, Friedrich, 377–78, 900–901

Bucklin, Robert, 305, 310, 316, 325–26

Bultmann, Rudolf, 127, 131, 137–38, 142, 157, 248, 253, 363, 368–71, 374–75, 417, 434, 441, 445–46, 482, 497, 516, 518, 598–99, 602–4, 728, 758, 776, 784, 812, 845, 873, 898, 916

Burch, G. E., 305

Burgon, John, 797

Burns, Robert M., 13

Burridge, Richard A., 119, 269, 447, 459, 472, 608, 755–57, 777, 837–38

Burr, John R., 1000

Bush, Nancy Evans, 989–91

Buswell, Geoffrey, 900

Bynum, Caroline Walker, 622

Byrd, Randolph C., 274, 953, 966

Byrskog, Samuel, 110, 761

C

Cadbury, H. J., 837

Caecilius, Gaius Plinius, 37

Caesar, Julius, 37

Caird, G. B., 362, 443, 464, 616, 731, 744, 746, 897–98

Cairns, Earle E., 27, 36–37, 39, 54

Callahan, Tim, 346

Callen, T., 837

Cameron, Ron, 553

Campbell, Ronnie, 5, 98

Canney, Maurice A., 646

Capra, Fritjof, 1004

Carr, E. H., 15, 58

Carrier, Richard C., 95, 165, 638, 654, 662, 678, 683, 787, 947

Carroll, John T., 346, 350, 352

Carson, D. A., 379, 411, 413, 570, 701, 871, 892, 910, 913, 915, 918, 924, 927

Carter, Chris, 971

Casdorph, H. Richard, 277, 953

Casey, Maurice, 108, 156, 158–62, 165–66, 179, 269–70, 391, 394, 558, 611, 678, 683, 716, 754–56, 772, 805, 833, 876, 912

Catchpole, David, 140

Celsus, 166, 191, 209, 213, 216, 289, 910

Chadwick, Henry, 191

Chamberlain, Paul, 949, 960

Charlesworth, James H., 131, 175–76, 210, 268, 289, 303, 309, 311, 353, 410, 534, 658, 861

Chatraw, Joshua D., 90

Cheek, John L., 300

Chilton, Bruce D., 166, 265, 277, 356, 516, 534, 557, 562, 829

Chryssides, George, 231

Church, Alfred John, 22, 116, 405, 702

Church, B., 304

Cicero, 19, 45, 318, 332

Cilliers, L., 304–5, 316, 320, 326, 329, 333

Clark, Neville, 612

Claypool, John R., 534

Cleland, Carol E., 12, 86–87

Clement of Rome, 156, 285, 288, 410, 412, 426, 523, 925

Coakley, Sarah, 608, 623

Cohen, Ralph, 228

Cohn-Sherbok, D. M., 746, 945

Collingwood, Robin G., 30, 33, 36, 57, 64, 81, 84, 137, 237

Collins, Adela Yarbro, 488, 615, 734, 736, 781

Conway, Bobby, 840

Conze, Edward, 112–13, 224, 251, 459, 472, 911

Conzelmann, Hans, 489, 491, 511, 558, 713, 716, 719, 721–22, 745, 900

Cook, Emily Williams, 970–71, 976

Cook, John Granger, 170, 181, 210, 212, 300, 308–9, 313, 322–23, 350–51, 353, 581, 617–18, 622

Cooper, Sharon, 982–83

Copan, Paul, 17, 102, 388, 516, 610, 638, 673, 854

Corduan, Winfried, 110

Court, John M., 161

Cowan, Harold, 1005

Cowan, Steven B., 803, 946

Crabtree, Adam, 1000

Craig, Gordon A., 36

Craig, William Lane, 91, 102, 157, 232, 263, 299, 392, 394, 402, 418, 491, 507, 538–39, 561, 581, 584, 609, 611, 614, 616, 620, 622–23, 631–32, 638, 656, 660, 671, 673, 677, 712, 714, 722, 781, 784–85, 812–16, 845, 854, 959

Cranfield, C. E. B., 531, 603, 609, 612, 705, 712, 745, 781, 898

Creech, R. R., 837

Croce, Benedetto, 30, 33, 36, 57, 64, 81, 137, 237

Crockett, Davy, 38

Cross, F. L., 197

Crossan, John Dominic, 100, 112, 162–63, 165, 179, 207–8, 255–57, 259, 263, 269–70, 272–73, 301, 318–19, 332, 344, 347, 352, 356, 381, 390, 394, 397–99, 411, 423, 434–35, 439, 441, 444, 453, 496, 511, 518, 524, 531, 553, 557, 568, 580–81, 609, 613–14, 616, 619, 622, 637, 639, 658, 682, 704, 711, 713, 716, 721, 752–53, 763, 780, 787, 812–13, 883–84, 904, 945

Crossley, James G., 108, 394, 611, 622, 772, 775, 804–5, 833, 912

Cullmann, Oscar, 44, 111, 269, 286–87, 292, 371, 374, 442–43, 448, 452, 457, 477, 482, 485, 492, 497–98, 503–4, 513–14, 517, 534, 801, 844, 852, 857–58, 874

Cumont, Franz, 211, 629, 817–18

Cunningham, Brian L., 573

Custer, George Armstrong, 38

D

Danby, Herbert, 172

Daniel-Rops, Henri, 172–74, 180, 204–5

Davies, W. D., 375

Davis, C. Truman, 305–6, 326

Davis, Stephen T., 17, 21, 24, 79, 240, 267, 346, 394, 512, 561, 608–10, 612, 614, 616, 622–23, 625, 627–29, 682, 712, 737, 745–46, 783, 854, 945, 948

Dawe, Donald G., 610, 612, 705, 745

Dawes, Gregory W., 20, 138, 417

D’Costa, Gavin, 24, 381, 610–11, 745–46, 781

Debbins, William, 30

Delbrück, Hans, 36

Denaux, Adelbert, 845

DePasquale, N. P., 305

Derrett, J. Duncan M., 333, 335, 558, 607, 683, 781, 803, 818
de Sélincourt, Aubrey, 405

De Vries, Jaap W., 995
de Zulueta, F., 211, 629

Dhanani, S., 995

Dhanis, E., 607

Diamond, Malcolm, 231

Didden, Patricia A., 306, 326

Diephuis, J. C., 995

Dietl, Paul J., 232

Digan, Katie, 14

Dillon, R. J., 837

Dilthey, Wilhelm, 29–30, 33, 57, 64, 81, 237

Dio, Cassius, 120

Dirven, Anny, 951, 968–70, 972, 974–76, 979, 981–82, 984–86, 995–96, 1001–3, 1005, 1007–8

Dodd, C. H., 44, 110, 140, 269, 286, 334, 371, 374, 381, 390, 392, 418, 440–44, 447–48, 451, 453, 457, 461–62, 474, 477, 482, 484–86, 488–89, 493, 497, 503, 512–14, 518, 618, 674, 693, 719, 802, 821–22, 827, 846–48, 852, 857–58, 870, 876, 886, 889, 893, 897, 906

Doherty, Earl, 159–60, 165

Donaldson, James, 183, 204, 929

Doran, Robert, 57

Doré, Joseph, 378, 391, 529, 618, 698, 745

Dougherty, Trent, 950

Drane, John, 180, 379, 413, 450–51, 512, 712, 913, 915, 919, 924

Draper, Paul, 959

Dray, William H., 11, 14, 32, 61, 64

Ducasse, C. J., 1000–1002

Dudrey, Russ, 670

Dufour, Léon, 194

Dulles, Avery, 920–21, 923, 928, 930–31

Dungan, D. L., 837

Dunn, James D. G., 11–12, 19, 24–26, 46, 80, 100, 110, 118, 162, 164–66, 181, 197, 269–70, 278, 286, 323, 333–34, 345, 350, 354, 358, 365, 371, 376–78, 381–82, 389, 391, 393–96, 407, 441, 444, 448–49, 451, 453, 457, 459, 467, 472, 481, 495, 498, 516–17, 531, 553, 608, 610–11, 616, 624, 627, 633–34, 676, 678, 682, 693, 699, 705, 713–14, 716, 756–57, 759–61, 768–69, 826, 906, 925, 945

Du Plessis, I. I., 837

Durrwell, Francis X., 512, 619, 712, 744, 746, 868

E

Earle, Edward M., 36

Earl of Wicklow, 304

Earman, John, 232

Eddy, G. T., 24, 79

Eddy, Paul Rhodes, 12, 100, 162–64, 181, 350

Eduard, T., 305

Edwards, Paul, 237

Edwards, William D., 305, 316, 321, 326, 329

Efferich, I., 976

Ehrman, Bart D., 41, 45, 98, 100, 104–5, 111–12, 127, 142–43, 156, 158–59, 162, 164–67, 179, 197, 207, 218–20, 225, 249, 253, 256, 269–71, 283–92, 295–96, 318, 337–38, 344, 347, 373–74, 376, 379–85, 390–91, 393–94, 399–400, 403–7, 410–11, 417, 422, 428–30, 434, 440–41, 443–44, 448, 450–51, 453, 455–56, 459, 461, 466–67, 470, 472, 477–78, 486–87, 494–96, 502–4, 507, 511–12, 517–18, 529–31, 540–41, 554, 556, 569–70, 575–76, 585, 587–90, 593, 604–6, 611, 613–15, 617, 619–20, 622–23, 626–27, 632, 639–45, 651, 658, 664, 668, 670, 675, 678, 683, 688, 699, 701–2, 704–5, 711, 713, 716, 721, 732, 739, 754–56, 772, 777–78, 784, 787–88, 799–800, 805, 807, 813, 859–60, 863, 876, 893, 899–900, 906, 910, 912–13, 915, 918–19, 925, 927–28, 939–40, 944, 946–47, 956–57

Eisenschiml, Otto, 38, 169

Eliade, Mircea, 716

Eliot, Charles L., 37

Eliot, George, 433

Eller, Vernard, 407

Elliott, J. K., 496, 512, 518, 529, 616, 624, 697, 711, 713–14, 741, 781, 802, 957

Eltester, Walther, 601

Elton, Geoffrey, 15, 59

Elwell, Walter A., 47, 801

Emerson, Matthew Y., 695

Engel, Michael, 211

Epstein, I., 189

Erdman, Charles R., 413

Erickson, Millard J., 930

Eriksson, Bart, 386

Eusebius, 173, 187, 222, 523, 658, 913, 921, 924

Evans, C. F., 713, 868

Evans, Craig A., 24, 80, 166, 170, 194, 346, 355–56, 424, 516, 603, 608, 611, 614, 620, 642–45, 678, 683, 713, 724, 745, 781–82, 813, 829, 842, 897–98, 900

Evans, C. Stephen, 608, 611

Evans, Richard J., 15, 31, 60–61, 84, 87, 132

Eve, Eric, 47

Ewing, George W., 114

F

Fairbairn, Donald, 485

Fales, Evan, 583, 874

Farmer, William R., 255, 378, 796, 829

Fasolt, Constantin, 16

Fay, Brian, 62–63

Feldman, Louis, 178

Fenton, John, 781, 783

Fenwick, Elizabeth, 971

Fenwick, Peter, 971, 976, 995–96, 1007

Fernandes, Eustace S., 306

Fine, Steven, 647

Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler, 512

Fischer, David Hackett, 23, 36, 45, 81, 84

Fischer, John Martin, 963–64

Fishman, Yonatan I., 963, 1001

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 350, 353, 616, 622, 745, 780, 854, 889–92, 897

Flew, Antony G. N., 20, 33, 91, 107, 111, 231, 233–34, 237, 239, 242, 246, 392, 686, 736, 745, 950–51

Flint, Thomas P., 615, 959

Flusser, David, 175

Foakes-Jackson, F. J., 837

Ford, Marvin, 976

Foreman, Mark W., 340

Forrest, Benjamin K., 90

Fossum, Jarl, 248, 268

Foucault, Michel, 33, 36, 59, 237

Fowler, F. G., 193

Fowler, H. W., 193

Foxe, John, 322

Fox, Robin Lane, 224, 778

France, Richard T., 156, 166, 181, 194, 197–98, 270, 272, 396, 460, 550, 552, 585, 608–9, 692, 701, 713, 779–80, 782, 784, 786, 789, 793–94, 796, 805–6, 848, 897–98

Frei, Hans, 744

Friedrich, Gerhard, 243–45

Fuller, Edmund, 405

Fuller, Reginald H., 140, 253, 264, 363, 380, 392, 394, 401, 407, 418, 441, 451, 453, 476, 486–89, 491, 501, 507, 512, 516, 531, 559, 573, 579, 588, 608, 616, 619–20, 625, 698, 705, 713–15, 721, 732, 739, 743–44, 779, 781, 784, 786, 791–93, 812, 845, 854, 863–65, 871, 882, 885, 961

Funk, Robert W., 44–46, 50, 127, 133–34, 165, 179, 249, 255, 268, 290–91, 345, 347, 356, 358, 380–81, 383–85, 388, 397–401, 409, 412, 425, 439–40, 444, 449, 453, 455, 475, 495–96, 500–502, 509, 511, 518, 524, 529, 553, 556, 578, 587–88, 613–16, 638, 696, 701, 704, 738–39, 741, 745, 809, 812–14, 822–23, 827–31, 845–46, 859, 870, 910, 913, 915, 918

Furlong, F. P., 305

Furnish, Victor Paul, 141, 457, 491–92, 529

G

Gabel, Wesley J., 305, 316, 321, 326, 329

Gallie, W. B., 52

Galvin, John P., 745

Gangel, Kenneth O., 904

Ganssle, Greg, 959

Gardiner, Patrick, 14, 16, 29–30, 32–33, 52, 64–65, 77, 81–82, 237

Gardner, Rex, 277, 953

Gaskin, J. C. A., 231

Gathercole, Simon J., 355–56, 359, 442, 730, 738

Gauch, Hugh G., 874

Gay, Peter, 157

Geisler, Norman L., 43, 109, 232, 279

Geis, Robert, 610

Geivett, R. Douglas, 232, 393, 874

Gerhardsson, Birger, 110, 164, 269–70, 607, 759

Getz, Gene A., 407

Gibson, Shimon, 678

Gilbert, Felix, 36

Gilderhus, Mark T., 14, 19, 24, 31, 36, 58, 61, 80, 88

Gilmore, S. Maclean, 434

Gingrich, F. Wilbur, 900–901

Godman, S., 442

Goergen, Donald, 347, 352, 512, 609, 712, 782

Goetz, Stewart, 949

Goguel, Maurice, 183

Goldinger, Milton, 1000

Goodacre, Mark, 256, 630

Gooding, David, 610, 612, 905

Goodman, Martin, 511

Goulder, Michael, 381, 394, 444, 496, 511, 518, 599, 613–14, 638

Gould, Graham, 447, 459, 472, 608, 756

Gourges, M., 512, 618

Granskou, David, 110, 516

Grant, Frederick C., 137

Grant, Michael, 19, 22, 24, 47, 50, 79, 219, 221, 249, 459, 496, 511, 518, 529, 531, 559, 583, 608, 633, 742, 911

Grant, Robert M., 198–99, 201, 710, 738

Grass, Hans, 381, 401, 579, 961

Graves, Robert, 45–46, 116, 120, 180–81, 331, 405

Grayston, Kenneth, 140, 790–91, 794

Greene, H. Leon, 991

Greenhalgh, John, 610

Green, Joel B., 346, 350, 352, 836, 877, 895

Green, Michael, 363

Green, V., 346, 382

Grempf, Conrad H., 512

Greyson, Bruce, 951, 965, 970–71, 974–77, 979–80, 989–91, 993, 996–97, 1008

Griffin, J. C., 995

Grobel, Kendrick, 127

Grossman, Neal, 1003

Gruenler, Royce, 47–48

Grundmann, Walter, 243–44

Gualdi-Russo, Emanuela, 308, 320, 332, 351

Guillaume, Jean-Marie, 608, 620, 625, 744, 784, 845, 855, 865–66

Guinness, Os, 820–21, 840

Gundry, Robert H., 610, 616, 622, 899

Gundry, Stanley N., 803

Guthrie, Donald, 51, 413, 506, 570, 692–93, 859, 861–62, 888–92, 894, 913, 915, 918, 924

Guthrie, Shirley C., 442

Gwynne, Paul, 224, 251, 459, 472, 955

H

Haas, Nicu, 210, 311, 319, 332, 351

Habermas, Gary R., 14, 20, 27–28, 33, 42–43, 47, 50–51, 66, 90–92, 96, 101, 106–7, 111–12, 139, 156, 179, 212, 232–34, 237–39, 246, 259, 269–70, 276–77, 279, 285, 289, 296, 306, 308, 323, 339–40, 383, 392–95, 429, 536, 538, 540–42, 547, 556, 567, 580, 584, 610–11, 613–14, 630–31, 647, 683, 686–88, 735–36, 744–45, 753, 766, 788, 803, 840, 874, 882, 911, 946, 948–49, 951, 955–56, 978, 984, 990–91, 1002, 1005–6

Hadas, Moses, 22, 116, 120, 167, 405

Hagan, John C., 951, 989

Hagner, Donald A., 608, 745, 899

Hall, Charles A. M., 442

Hall, David, 28

Hallman, Joseph M., 516

Hamilton, Matthew, 211

Hannam, James, 159, 169

Haraldsson, Erlendur, 990–91, 993

Harley, Felicity, 302

Harmer, J. R., 287

Harper, Kyle, 211, 630

Harris, Murray J., 253, 266–67, 392, 507, 610, 614, 626–27, 705, 780, 796, 815, 819–20, 825–26, 864, 869, 873–74, 896, 905–6, 953

Harris, R. Laird, 110

Harris, William S., 274, 966

Harrison, S. J., 318, 332

Harrisville, Roy A., 900

Hart, D. G., 83

Hartwell, H. H., 96

Haskell, Thomas L., 102

Hasker, William, 1003–4

Hauffe, Jason, 98

Hayes, Michael A., 512, 745

Hays, Richard B., 451, 491, 505, 513, 829

Hebblethwaite, Brian, 516, 609, 612

Heller, John, 326

Helms, Randel, 615

Hemer, Colin J., 512, 888–89

Henault, Barry W., 638

Hengel, Martin, 170, 181, 297, 302, 308, 320, 330, 333, 347, 349–50, 354, 360, 362–63, 365, 375, 386, 392, 394, 443, 499, 506–712293500111883980105

Henry, Carl F. H., 759, 874

Hepburne-Scott, P. J., 172

Heraclitus, 377

Herodotus, 115, 300, 377–78, 683

Herre, J. M., 995

Hewitt, Joseph William, 305, 350

Hick, John, 637, 711

Higgins, A. J. B., 378, 442

Higgins, Michael, 490

Hill, Charles, 355

Hills, Edward, 797

Hippocrates, 377

Hitchens, Christopher, 359

Hodgson, Peter C., 433

Hoehner, Harold W., 348–49

Hoffman, Paul K., 43, 279

Hoffmann, Paul, 412

Hoffmann, R. Joseph, 165, 191, 209, 910

Holck, Frederick H., 1004

Holden, Janice Miner, 951, 964, 968, 971–72, 975, 984, 989–90, 1008

Holder, Rodney D., 232

Holding, James Patrick, 884

Holland, R. F., 230, 232

Holleman, Joost, 363, 512, 619

Holmén, Tom, 43, 424

Holmes, Michael W., 287, 404

Holoubek, A. B., 305

Holoubek, J. E., 305

Holtz, Traugott, 345

Holtzmann, Oskar, 645–46

Homer, 122, 377

Hook, Sidney, 72

Hooke, S. H., 49

Hooper, Walter, 236, 824

Hoover, A. J., 110

Hoover, Roy W., 44–46, 50, 133, 255, 268, 290–91, 347, 358, 384, 388, 401, 425, 451, 511, 557, 577–78, 588, 614, 738–39, 780, 814, 829–31, 859

Hopkins, Brooke, 743

Horn, Apostle Arne, 187

Hornby, L., 995

Horovitz, David, 647

Horsley, Richard A., 356, 481

Hosmer, Floyd E., 305, 316, 321, 326, 329

Houlberg, L., 980

Houlden, Leslie, 648, 734–35, 812

House, H. Wayne, 270, 430

Hume, David, 33, 228, 231, 233–34, 237, 239, 273

Hunter, Archibald M., 111, 758, 945

Huntress, Erminie, 127

Hurst, L. D., 362, 443, 464, 616

Hurtado, Larry W., 292, 354, 365, 375–77, 381, 391, 393, 396, 444, 446, 448, 450–51, 465–66, 495, 498–99, 503, 514, 517, 531, 550, 603, 608, 611, 691–92, 701, 713, 731, 737–38, 782, 789, 791, 794, 796, 897–98, 901

Hutchinson, W. M. L., 184

Hutton, Paul Andrew, 38–39

Huxley, Thomas, 234

Hynek, R. W., 305

I

Iamblichus, 683

Ignatius, 156, 285, 288, 410, 412, 426, 492, 523, 528, 544, 915–18

Irenaeus, 289, 372, 924

J

Jacks, L. P., 639

Jackson, Hugh, 529, 696

Jacobovici, Simcha, 567

James, Debbie, 951, 971, 975, 989–90

James, M. R., 319, 352, 623

Jansen, John Frederick, 609, 616, 627, 714, 868

Jenkins, Burris, 987

Jenkins, Keith, 56–60, 62–63, 68, 73, 86

Jenkins, Phillip, 611

Jennings, Peter, 340

Jensen, Dennis, 232

Jenson, Peter, 157, 609, 745

Jeremias, Joachim, 49, 140, 418, 449, 486–89, 705, 719, 945

Jerome, 924

Jessett, Elke, 319

Jewell, James Hyland, 306, 326

Johansson, Rune E. A., 1004

Johnson, Christopher Jay, 1005

Johnson, Luke Timothy, 12, 17, 19–20, 25, 79–80, 100, 144, 162–63, 166, 197, 224, 345, 363, 374, 379, 392, 394, 400, 422, 431, 490, 494, 507, 512, 516, 531, 651, 656, 658, 668, 700, 709, 716, 743, 777, 781, 807, 822–23, 829, 859–60, 876, 913, 915, 918

Johnson, Sherman E., 656

Johnston, Jeremiah J., 658, 664–65

Johnston, Jeremy, 670

Jonas, Hans, 199, 201

Jones, Clay, 110

Josephus, Flavius, 165–66, 172, 177–79, 189, 213, 264, 285, 289, 300, 328, 412, 461, 483, 523, 545, 600, 643–44, 678, 683, 786, 895

Jowett, Benjamin, 45, 405

Juel, Donald, 900

Just, Felix, 862

Justin Martyr, 204, 220, 289, 492, 811, 929–33

K

Kähler, Martin, 725

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., 875

Kaminskas, David A., 306

Kankaanniemi, Matti, 299, 625, 628, 668–69, 814

Kansteiner, Wulf, 86

Käsemann, Ernst, 138–39, 417, 431

Kasper, Walter, 345–46, 382, 444, 450–51, 517, 535, 610, 620, 627, 698, 784, 845

Kay, D. M., 921–22

Kearney, Peter J., 392, 507

Keathley, N. H., 837

Kee, Alistair, 782

Kee, Howard Clark, 110, 166, 181, 249, 253, 391, 394–95, 400, 449, 496, 507, 511, 518, 559, 588, 698, 781, 790, 954

Keener, Craig S., 97, 109, 229, 232, 250–51, 269–70, 274–77, 295, 321, 330, 355, 439–40, 458, 461, 506, 551, 553, 569, 582–83, 608, 656, 692–93, 714, 811, 815, 820, 825–26, 859–60, 862–65, 868, 871–73, 888, 891–93, 896–99

Keim, Theodor, 401, 579, 585

Kelber, Werner H., 614, 761

Kellehear, Allan, 990

Kellner, Hans, 62

Kelly, David, 1001, 1003

Kelly, Edward F., 975, 991, 993, 1000

Kelly, Emily Williams, 975–77, 991, 993, 997

Kelly, Geffrey B., 845

Kelly, J. N. D., 483, 485

Kelly, Stewart E., 16, 36, 57–58, 67–69, 71, 73, 78, 82–83, 85–88, 1001, 1003

Kendall, Daniel, 17, 24, 512, 561, 600, 608–9, 622–23, 673–74, 737, 745, 783, 945

Kennedy, Rick, 24, 30, 80

Kent, Jack, 496, 511, 518, 637, 696, 741, 746

Ker, C. A., 318

Kerns, Diane, 14

Kerr, Fergus, 490

Kilburn, K., 45, 761

Killgrove, Kristina, 309, 319, 332, 351

Kilpatrick, G. D., 378

Kirby, Peter, 632

Kitchen, K. A., 111

Kittel, Gerhard, 243–45

Klausner, Joseph, 172, 174, 188, 190–91, 220, 225, 557, 646

Kloner, Amos, 647

Kloppenborg, John S., 412, 418, 449–51, 488, 490, 495–96, 512–13, 518, 618, 699, 737, 845

Knohl, Israel, 296

Knox, John, 371, 409, 467

Knudson, Albert C., 96

Koester, Helmut, 111–12, 197, 288, 345, 391, 394, 398, 402, 410–11, 422, 455–56, 459, 494, 506, 530, 576, 611, 658, 697, 700, 741, 778, 833, 913, 915, 918, 920–21, 924–25, 927–28, 930–32

Kohl, Margaret, 141, 362, 609

Komoszewski, J. Ed, 268, 365

Komrosky, Joseph, 964

Konyndyk, Kenneth, 946

Kopel, Jonathan, 306, 339

Koperski, Jeffrey, 1003

Köstenberger, Andreas J., 109, 348

Krause, Neil, 92

Kreeft, Peter, 110

Kremer, Jacob, 535, 607, 611, 614, 624, 630, 632, 712

Kroitor, Kevin, 610, 614, 616, 618, 624, 627

Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth, 980

Kuhn, Thomas S., 56, 92, 235

Kuklick, Bruce, 83

Kümmel, Werner Georg, 613, 742

Kundsin, Karl, 137, 758

Küng, Hans, 345, 350, 516, 674, 697, 713, 742, 780, 853

Künneth, Walter, 712, 744

L

Ladd, George Eldon, 346, 560, 612, 616, 698, 745, 897–99

Lake, Kirsopp, 579, 837

Lambdin, Thomas O., 198

LaMontagne, Nathan, 161

Lane, William L., 193, 879, 898

Lapide, Pinchas, 219, 269, 394–95, 484, 487, 490–91, 496, 511–12, 518, 529, 585, 604, 608, 698, 704, 833, 945, 957

Larmer, Robert A., 229, 232

Laupot, Eric, 171

LaVerdiere, Eugene, 854

Lawrence, Madelaine, 967, 974

Leaney, A. R. C., 897, 900

LeBec, A., 305

Légasse, S., 323, 332–34

Lehmann, Karl, 722

Lehmann, Paul, 745

Leinster, S. J., 306

Leitch, James W., 489, 713, 744

Levine, Amy-Jill, 80, 97

Levinson, David, 911

Lewis, Alan E., 695, 810

Lewis, C. S., 14, 92, 125, 228, 232, 236, 239, 241–42, 251, 824

Lewis, Richard, 316

Lewontin, Richard, 20–21

Licona, Michael R., 40, 52, 56–57, 63, 70, 73, 83, 86, 90, 95, 102, 107, 109, 119, 133, 148–49, 170, 178, 233, 255, 269–70, 300, 308, 321, 328, 340, 347, 360, 383, 392, 402, 405, 422, 429, 436, 454, 461, 490–91, 509, 512, 528, 556, 561, 563–66, 571, 576, 598, 600, 608, 611, 613, 616, 622, 631–32, 666, 686, 705, 712–14, 719, 724, 756–57, 777–78, 784, 795, 798, 802, 805, 820, 844, 848, 869, 899, 943, 946, 954, 1003

Lieu, Judith, 610

Lightfoot, J. B., 287–88, 910, 924, 926

Lillback, Peter A., 139

Lincoln, Andrew, 781, 880

Lindars, Barnabas, 490, 496, 512, 518, 613, 616, 626, 711, 713, 743, 780, 868

Lipton, Peter, 80

Livingstone, E. A., 197

Livius, Titus, 118

Livy, 19, 45, 405, 643

Locke, John, 114

Lodge, John C., 812, 854

Loisy, Alfred, 639, 645

Loke, Andrew, 614, 624, 633

Longenecker, Richard N., 140, 442–43, 452, 477, 485–86, 489, 499, 608, 728, 877, 879

Long, Jeffrey, 971, 976, 990–91, 994–96,
1007–8

Loose, Jonathan J., 951, 963

Lorenz, Chris, 73

Lorenzen, Thorwald, 144, 392, 453, 507, 516, 531, 560, 609, 611, 613, 626–27, 698, 746, 812, 945

Lowder, Jeffery Jay, 95, 335, 372, 559, 632, 638–39, 646–49, 651–52, 654, 683, 882

Lucian of Samosata, 45, 166, 193, 289, 761, 917

Lüdemann, Gerd, 24, 79–80, 219, 269, 291–92, 301, 345, 381, 391, 393–94, 398, 444, 451, 453, 485, 490, 496, 507, 510–12, 516–18, 529, 556, 578, 580, 583, 612, 616, 618, 622, 638, 648, 682, 704, 711, 713, 721, 764, 789, 853, 889, 896, 902, 944, 957

Lull, D. J., 837

Lumpkin, R., 305

Lyotard, Jean-François, 57, 60, 86

M

Maccini, Robert Gordon, 600

MacDonald, Dennis Ronald, 319

Macgregor, G. H. C., 642

MacIntyre, Alasdair, 231

Mack, Burton L., 255, 258, 269–70, 736, 738–39

Mackie, J. L., 20, 33, 231, 233–35, 237, 239, 241–42, 245, 959–60

Mackintosh, H. R., 434

MacLurg, B. Jason, 990

Macquarrie, John, 598, 609, 612, 776, 945

MacRae, George W., 199, 713

Magness, Jodi, 647

Maier, Gerhard, 413

Maier, Paul L., 19, 24, 38, 46, 51, 79–80, 211, 221, 225, 290, 348, 394, 612, 614, 626, 629, 666, 818

Malhotra, Ashok K., 992

Mann, C. S., 897, 899

Mannheim, Karl, 33, 82, 237

Manson, T. W., 140, 899

Manson, William, 111

Mara bar Serapion, 166, 523

Marcus, Joel, 466

Marley, Euan, 161

Marsden, George M., 83

Marshall, David, 745

Marshall, I. Howard, 253, 365, 724

Marshall, Paul, 1000

Marsh, John, 485

Marsh, Michael N., 993

Martin, Michael, 46, 179–80, 384, 388, 394, 451, 577, 588, 612, 963

Marxsen, Willi, 140–41, 253, 529, 614, 696, 742, 869, 900

Mascall, Eric, 610, 612

Maslen, Matthew W., 304, 313, 319–20, 351, 353

Ma‘súmián, Farnáz, 1004

Mattison, Mark M., 203

Mavrodes, George, 232

Maximus, Valerius, 321

Mazlish, Bruce, 14

McCormick, Michael, 211

McCullagh, C. Behan, 11, 24, 36, 73, 78, 80–81, 83–85, 961

McDonald, J. I. H., 781

McDowell, Josh, 110

McDowell, Sean, 110, 221, 526–27, 533–34, 545, 590, 879

McEleney, N. L., 140

McGee, Marsha G., 1005

McGovern, Thomas W., 306

McGrath, Alister, 90

McGrew, Linda, 539, 541, 547, 608, 611, 954

McGrew, Lydia, 95, 128

McGrew, Timothy J., 232, 539, 541, 547, 608, 611, 954

McKeever, Michael, 836

McKinnon, Alastair, 231

McLuskey, Fraser, 138, 264, 742, 945

McLuskey, Irene, 138, 264, 742, 945

Meacham, William, 340

Meggitt, Justin J., 158

Meier, John P., 19, 47–48, 52, 79, 127, 165, 197, 248–49, 253, 260–63, 287, 345, 347, 389, 392, 394, 430, 476, 506–7, 531, 540–41, 560, 608, 657–58, 701, 705, 712, 737–38, 845, 954

Meiselman, Moshe, 600

Meister, Chad, 91, 394, 946

Meister, Craig, 91

Melmoth, William, 37, 184

Menuge, Angus J. L., 951, 963

Merklein, Helmut, 512, 618, 742

Metherell, Alexander, 306

Mettinger, Tryggve, 713, 716

Metzger, Bruce, 403, 459, 461, 714, 716–17, 855

Meyer, Arnold, 646

Meyer, Ben F., 51, 140, 362, 392, 507, 531, 744

Meyerhoff, Hans, 14, 30, 32, 65, 69, 74

Meyers, V., 976

Michels, Raymond, 211

Miethe, Terry L., 33, 112, 392, 612

Miller, J. Steve, 958, 972, 980–81, 983, 990, 993

Miller, Robert J., 80, 97

Miller, Thomas A., 306, 308

Mishkin, David, 249, 496, 511, 518, 705

Mitchell, Piers D., 304, 313, 319–20, 351, 353

Mitchell-Yellin, Benjamin, 963

Mödder, Hermann, 304–5, 310–11, 326

Moessner, D. P., 837

Moller-Christensen, Vilhelm, 210, 319, 332, 351

Moltmann, Jürgen, 24, 80, 137, 345, 362, 516, 531, 609, 611, 624, 698, 705, 713, 744, 896, 945

Montgomery, John Warwick, 109

Montgomery, W., 96, 157

Moo, Douglas J., 379, 411, 413, 570, 701, 871, 892, 910, 913, 915, 918, 924, 927

Moody, Raymond, 981

Moreau, P., 194

Moreland, J. P., 91, 107, 109, 235, 259, 270, 347, 394, 538–39, 611, 829, 946, 949, 951, 963, 978, 990–91, 1002–6

Moreland, Milton C., 412

Morgan, Robert, 812

Morrall, Peter, 528

Morris, Leon, 379, 411, 413, 570, 692, 701, 868, 871, 892, 910, 913, 915, 918, 924, 927

Morse, Melvin, 969–71, 975–76, 978, 980–82, 990–91, 993

Moser, Paul K., 840

Moss, Candida, 527, 537–38

Moule, C. F. D., 110, 759, 782, 903

Mounce, Robert, 656, 808, 810, 819, 826, 897–99

Mowinkel, Sigmund, 111

Muddiman, John, 610

Mullin, Robert Bruce, 227, 232

Murphy, Cullen, 309

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, 450–51, 488, 495, 513, 699

Murphy, Roland E., 780

Myers, J. M., 855

Myers, John, 978

N

Nagasawa, Yujin, 227–28

Nagel, Ernest, 11, 32, 69, 72, 84

Nagel, Thomas, 20–21

Nash, Ronald, 14

Neill, Stephen, 96, 131, 280, 369, 375, 516, 547, 603, 758, 775, 955

Neirynck, Frans, 620, 625, 780, 784, 794, 865–66

Neufeld, Vernon H., 269, 286, 371, 374, 381, 387, 442–43, 452, 457, 469, 477, 482, 484–86, 489, 492–93, 503–4, 513–14, 543, 674, 728, 915

Neusner, Jacob, 534, 557, 562

Newcombe, Jerry, 139

Newman, Carey C., 16, 359

Newman, Ralph, 38, 169

Newman, Robert C., 28, 874

Nickelsburg, George W. E., 516

Nielson, Kai, 949

Novakovic, Lidija, 608

Novick, Peter, 31–32, 55–56, 59, 66, 70, 78, 102

Nowell-Smith, Patrick, 231

Nystrom, David P., 570

O

Oates, Joel, 5, 98

O’Collins, Gerald, 17, 24, 44, 79–80, 96, 340, 362, 490, 507, 512, 516, 561, 600, 602, 608–9, 611, 614, 622–24, 627, 631–32, 673–74, 698, 705, 712, 714, 737, 745, 783, 794, 812, 845, 854, 900, 940, 945

Oden, Thomas C., 531, 561, 714, 896

O’Donnell, Matthew Brook, 512

Ơ Fearghail, F., 837

Ogilvie, R. M., 405

Okpewho, I., 760

O’Leary, Denyse, 996, 1002, 1004

Oppy, Graham, 959

Origen, 173, 191, 323–24, 911

Orr, James, 943

Osborne, Grant R., 24, 80, 140, 561, 610, 614, 779–82, 794, 813–14, 820, 826, 842–43, 854, 864, 868–69, 871

Osiek, Carolyn, 600, 602, 615, 780, 812

Osis, Karlis, 990–91, 993

Otte, Richard, 231

Overall, Christine, 231

Owen, David, 231, 948, 950

Özen, Alf, 24, 79–80, 345, 391, 490, 507, 529, 556, 578, 580, 648

P

Packer, James I., 612

Padgett, Alan G., 17, 79

Pagels, Elaine, 197, 344, 347, 529, 696, 711, 743

Painter, John, 561–64, 566

Palmer, D. W., 837

Pamment, Margaret, 622

Pana, R., 995

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 17, 24, 79–80, 110, 253, 380–81, 392, 441, 453, 507, 516, 529, 559, 603, 609, 611, 620, 622, 624, 628–29, 698, 705, 712, 784, 902, 941, 945, 961

Papias, 288, 387, 404, 528, 544, 919, 924–25

Parnia, Sam, 995–96, 1007

Parrish, Stephen, 950

Parsons, Keith, 638, 882

Partner, Nancy, 62–63

Pascal, Blaise, 113

Passmore, J. A., 32, 81

Pearse, Roger, 921

Peck, M. Scott, 258, 277

Peel, Malcolm L., 202

Peiffert, Chantal, 211

Pellegrino, Charles, 567

Pelletier, Joshua, 109, 552, 563, 778

Pensgard, David, 98

Perkins, Pheme, 352, 392, 490, 512, 516, 600, 602, 608, 618, 620, 623–25, 627–28, 713, 737, 744, 781, 784, 786, 793–94, 796, 812, 845–46, 866, 868, 889, 896

Perret, Jacques, 744

Perrin, Nicholas, 203

Perrin, Norman, 47, 50, 52, 139–42, 255, 417, 578, 743, 780, 812, 833, 882, 940

Perry, Charles, 346, 745

Perry, Paul, 969–71, 975–76, 981, 990–91, 993, 996, 1007

Pervo, R. I., 836–37

Pesch, Rudolf, 535, 620, 784

Peters, Ted, 12, 622

Peterson, David, 609, 745

Peterson, Eugene H., 561, 823

Petrie, C. Stewart, 694

Pfleiderer, Otto, 374–76, 497

Philo, 643, 678, 683

Pinnock, Clark H., 110

Plantinga, Alvin, 959–60

Platt, David, 407, 516

Plautus, 332

Pliny the Elder, 377

Pliny the Younger, 166, 184, 523, 527, 545, 643, 919

Plutarch, 322, 333, 378, 405, 756

Poehlmann, William, 900

Polybius, 378

Polycarp, 156, 288, 410, 412, 426, 523, 919

Porter, A. M., 306

Porter, Stanley E., 43, 139, 424, 512

Potter, G. J., 306

Potts, Michael, 965, 999

Powell, Mark Allan, 97, 156, 166, 181

Powelson, Mark, 255, 661, 715, 724

Praeder, S. M., 836

Price, Charles P., 745

Price, H. H., 1001

Price, Randall, 270, 430

Price, Robert M., 95, 100, 159, 162–65, 181, 335, 372–74, 431, 496, 511, 518, 559, 632, 638, 654, 787, 802, 882, 915, 1001–2

Priebe, Duane A., 17

Purtill, Richard, 232

Purves, Andrew, 823

Q

Quaife, Milo Milton, 38

Quinn, Edward, 345, 516

Quinn, Philip L., 959

Quintilian, 321–22, 333

R

Ramm, Bernard, 874–75

Ramsay, William M., 891–92

Randall, John Herman, Jr., 157

Rawlings, Maurice, 979

Rayment-Pickard, Hugh, 13

Rea, Michael C., 959

Reed, Jonathan L., 390, 398, 453, 580, 622

Reeves, Ryan M., 485

Reid, J. K. S., 44, 111, 269

Reimherr, O., 855

Remus, Harold, 127, 249, 954

Renfield, Richard L., 230

Rengstorf, Karl, 244

Rescher, Nicholas, 83

Retief, F. P., 304–5, 316, 320, 326, 329, 333

Rheaume, Randy, 877

Rhein, Reginald W., Jr., 310

Richards, K. H., 836

Richardson, Alan, 111

Riches, John K., 96

Riegert, Ray, 255, 661, 715, 724

Riesenfeld, Harald, 270

Riesner, Rainer, 481

Rieu, E. V., 37, 180, 405

Riley, Gregory J., 496, 511, 518, 710, 737

Riley, Harold, 837

Ring, Kenneth, 967, 971, 974, 977, 982–83, 991, 993

Rivas, Titus, 951, 968–70, 972, 974–76, 979, 981–82, 984–86, 995–96, 1001–3, 1005, 1007–8

Robbins, V. K., 837–38

Roberts, Alexander, 183, 204, 929

Roberts, David, 63

Roberts, W. Rhys, 895

Robertson, A. T., 378, 656, 810, 819, 826, 841, 864, 868, 876, 895–96

Robinson, Garret, 123

Robinson, Guy, 231

Robinson, James McConkey, 138, 197, 199–202, 255, 264, 411–12, 501, 738, 742, 945

Robinson, John A. T., 24, 46, 80, 110–11, 340, 345, 496, 511, 518, 609, 711, 741, 945

Rodriguez-Martin, C., 309, 319–20, 332

Rommer, Barbara R., 975

Rowe, William L., 959–60, 1001

Rüsen, Jörn, 14

Russell, Bertrand, 20, 33, 237, 949, 960, 992

Russell, Elizabeth, 610

Russell, Robert John, 12, 622

Ryan, Thomas J., 360, 451, 845

S

Sabom, Michael B., 967, 970–71, 976, 990–91, 993–94, 996, 1002, 1007–8

Samples, Kenneth Richard, 911, 955

Samuel, David, 17, 79, 392, 394, 507, 612, 712

Sanders, E. P., 24, 80, 135–36, 145, 166, 224, 249, 253, 317, 345, 347, 356, 368, 375, 435, 529, 560, 603, 609, 698, 712, 778, 798, 808, 868, 911, 945

Sartori, Penny, 976, 994

Sava, Anthony, 304–5, 325–26

Sawyer, M. James, 365

Schaaffs, Werner, 230, 232, 235–36

Schaff, Philip, 206

Scheinman, M. M., 995

Schierling, M. J., 836

Schierling, S. P., 836

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 434

Schlesinger, George N., 232

Schuler, P. L., 837

Schulte, K.-S., 304–5

Schweitzer, Albert, 96, 157, 222–23, 338

Schwemer, A. M., 386, 394

Scott, Bernard Brandon, 384, 593

Scuka, Robert F., 745

Seeberg, R., 488

Segal, Alan F., 391, 490, 557, 714, 746

Sekeles, Eliezer, 210, 305, 311, 319, 351–53

Seland, Torrey, 607

Selby, Peter, 745

Seneca, 315

Senior, Donald, 363, 780, 854

Severus, Sulpicius, 171

Shanks, Hershel, 211, 529, 557, 570

Shapiro, Larry, 231, 234, 948, 950

Sharp, Kimberly Clark, 974

Shatzmann, Siegfried S., 365

Shaw, Benjamin C. F., 5, 14, 90, 97, 99, 104, 127, 144, 232, 269, 306, 308, 323, 339, 688, 882, 956

Sheehan, Thomas, 347, 496, 511, 518, 588, 627, 638, 697, 743

Shemie, S. D., 995

Shermer, Michael, 960

Sherrill, John, 274, 966

Sherwin-White, A. N., 268, 891

Shrader, Douglas W., 992

Shuster, Marguerite, 745

Sills, David L., 14

Simpson, Benjamin I., 897–99

Sloyan, Gerard S., 346–47, 352, 357, 360, 897

Slupik, Chris, 231–32

Smit, Rudolf H., 951, 968–70, 972, 974–76, 979, 981–82, 984–86, 995–96, 1001–3, 1005, 1007–8

Smith, A. M. Sheridan, 33

Smith, Daniel A., 615–16, 620

Smith, Jonathan Z., 716

Smith, Louise Pettibone, 127

Smith, Morton, 251, 624, 648

Smith, Quentin, 650

Smith, Robert H., 516, 745, 781

Soards, Marion L., 108, 270, 295, 374, 483, 485, 506, 615, 620, 672, 784

Sobel, Jordan Howard, 231

Sorensen, Roy A., 232

Spillan, D., 118

Spitzer, Alan B., 57, 70, 78

Spong, John Shelby, 346, 529, 531, 557, 578, 611, 637, 696, 704, 853–54, 856, 944

Stander, H. F., 211, 630

Stanley, David M., 490, 610, 781

Stanton, Graham, 610, 615, 745, 780–81, 783, 812

Staudinger, Hugo, 394, 490, 512, 531, 614, 618, 624–25, 629, 745, 781, 812, 818, 866

Stauffer, Ethelbert, 485–86

Stecher, Carl, 101

Steely, John E., 374, 613

Stein, Fritz, 65

Stein, Robert H., 47–48, 50, 139–40, 255, 270, 417, 569, 610, 612, 614, 625, 703, 712, 783, 801, 854

Sterling, G. L., 837

Stevenson, Ian, 970–71, 976

Stevenson, Kenneth E., 304, 340

Stewart, Alexander, 348

Stewart, A. M., 253

Stewart, J. S., 434

Stewart, Robert B., 91, 96, 359, 398, 580, 752

Stinespring, William F., 557

Storm, Howard, 987

Strauss, David Friedrich, 336–38, 433, 646

Strawson, William, 477, 516

Streiker, Lowell, 532

Strobel, Lee, 306

Stroud, W., 304

Stuhlmacher, Peter, 345, 353, 365, 392, 490, 507, 535, 553, 559, 608, 624, 627, 653, 693, 837–38

Stump, Eleonore, 615

Sudduth, Michael, 1000–1001, 1003

Sweis, Khaldoun A., 91, 394, 946

Swinburne, Richard, 228–35, 239, 242, 245, 539, 541, 547, 611, 714, 945, 948, 950, 954

T

Tabor, James D., 17, 19, 25, 73, 80, 166, 211, 344, 347, 351, 353, 368, 377, 561, 566–67, 646–49, 651–52, 678, 683

Tacelli, Ronald K., 110, 388, 516, 610, 638, 673, 854

Tacitus, 19, 45, 118–20, 165–66, 168–69, 171, 181, 285, 331, 523, 918

Talbert, Charles H., 777, 837, 916

Taliaferro, Charles, 949, 959

Tanner, Don, 976

Tasker, R. V. G., 693, 899

Taylor, Doug E., 387, 440

Taylor, Justin, 348

Taylor, Richard, 245

Taylor, Vincent, 111

Teitelbaum, J., 995

Tenney, Merrill C., 871–72

Tenney, S. M., 304

Tertullian, 204–5, 372, 492, 811

Thackeray, H. St. John, 174

Thales, 377

Thallus, 166, 182, 289

Thatcher, Tom, 862

Thayer, Elisabeth B., 114

Thayer, H. S., 114

Theissen, Gerd, 379, 392, 859, 863, 900

Thielicke, Helmut, 745

Thrall, Margaret E., 628, 638, 697, 711

Thucydides, 45, 113, 377

Tillich, Paul, 230, 246, 945

Tilling, Chris, 355–56

Tinsley, E. J., 897, 900

Tombs, David, 512, 745

Torrance, Thomas, 633, 854, 903

Torrence, Thomas F., 137, 516, 810

Tosh, John, 19, 36, 58, 62, 70, 82, 87

Trajan, 166

Tranquillus, Gaius Suetonius, 46, 116–17, 119–20, 123, 166, 168, 180–81, 318, 331, 405

Trevor-Roper, Hugh R., 45

Trites, Allison A., 879

Trotter, William Finlayson, 113

Turchin, Sean, 98

Turner, Caleb, 5

Twelftree, Graham H., 21, 47, 232, 249, 253, 260–65, 418, 540–41, 657, 667, 954

Tweyman, Stanley, 234

Tzaferis, Vassilios, 311, 319, 351

U

Ulrichsen, Jarl Henning, 607

V

Valarino, Evelyn Elsaesser, 971
van Huffelen, A. C., 995

Van Lommel, Pim, 976, 978–79, 983, 995–96, 1007

Van Segbroeck, F., 837

Vansina, J., 760
van Unnik, W. C., 837–38

Van Voorst, Robert E., 156, 162, 165–66, 176–78, 181–83, 188, 190–92, 194, 196–97, 199, 207, 270, 289, 459, 910
van Wees, R., 976

Varghese, Roy Abraham, 33, 233, 392

Verheyden, Jack C., 434

Vermes, Geza, 127, 134–35, 165, 179, 249, 253, 269, 344, 496–97, 511, 518, 585, 607, 647, 704, 833, 945, 957

Vielhauer, Philipp, 489

Vine, W. E., 243–44

Visser, G. H., 995

W

Wagner, Günter, 716

Wainwright, William J., 1001

Wallace, Daniel B., 109, 365

Walls, Jerry, 950

Walsh, Bryan J., 340

Walsh, W. H., 18, 24, 32, 36–37, 65, 77, 80–81

Wand, William, 19, 23, 80, 633, 712

Wansbrough, Henry, 760, 845

Ware, James, 376, 386, 390, 394, 450–51, 454, 495, 513, 518, 675, 699, 732

Ware, Robert C., 745

Warren, J. V., 304

Wassener, Robert, 306, 326

Waterman, M. M. W., 609, 631

Watson, Francis, 531, 602, 613, 623, 780, 945

Weaver, Walter P., 131, 268

Webb, Robert L., 80, 97

Weber, Hans-Ruedi, 319, 347, 351–52, 363

Wedderburn, A. J. M., 24, 79–80, 345, 384, 398, 451, 453, 476, 496, 511, 518, 529, 531, 558, 697, 714, 720, 743, 746, 764, 772, 841, 864, 957

Wegner, Judith Romney, 600

Weiss, Jess E., 987

Welker, Michael, 12, 622

Wells, G. A., 159–60, 162, 169, 177, 179–80, 182–83, 197, 219, 496, 511, 518

Wellum, Stephen J., 279

Wenham, David, 232, 265–67, 277, 497, 581, 585, 609, 616

Wenham, John W., 110, 809, 813, 819, 841, 864, 869

Westcott, B. F., 857

Whanger, Alan, 212, 326, 340

Whanger, Mary, 212, 326, 340

Whiston, William, 172, 328, 483

Whitaker, J., 305

White, Hayden, 56–60, 63–64, 66–68, 72, 74–75, 81, 87

White, John, 516

White, Morton, 30, 32, 64, 81, 84, 86

Wiener, Jon, 78

Wilckens, Ulrich, 253, 361, 380, 559, 608, 744, 845, 945

Wilcox, Max, 286, 371, 374, 392, 418, 442–43, 451, 457, 462, 477, 482, 485–86, 512–14, 674, 719, 728, 906

Wilcox, Robert K., 304, 311–12, 323, 326

Wilkens, Ulrich, 110

Wilkerson, David, 335

Wilkins, Lewis L., 17

Wilkins, Michael J., 259, 270, 347, 611, 829

Wilkinson, John, 321, 323–26, 332–35

Williams, Peter, 268

Williams, Rowan, 512, 609, 626, 705, 869

Willis, David, 326

Wilson, A. N., 608

Wilson, Ian, 326

Wink, Walter, 609

Wisse, Frederick, 201

Witherington, Ben, III, 17, 79, 95, 211, 355, 365, 392, 466, 468, 507, 529, 557, 570, 610, 698, 782, 801, 829, 897–98

Wood, David, 884

Woodhouse, Mark, 1005–6

Woollacott, M., 964

Wright, N. T., 16–17, 21, 24, 79–80, 95–96, 131, 165, 181, 207–8, 352, 355–57, 359–60, 369, 375, 381, 388, 391, 394, 398, 402, 407, 428–29, 434, 436, 444, 459, 463, 476–77, 490, 512, 516, 531, 536, 559, 576, 603, 608, 611, 614, 616–17, 621, 627, 629, 658, 668, 671, 698, 701, 707, 712, 714, 737, 743, 746, 752–53, 758, 760, 762–67, 772, 775, 782, 786, 789–90, 813–14, 816, 819–20, 823, 825–27, 829–30, 841, 844, 848, 850–51, 869, 876, 897–98, 903–4, 945

Wright, V., 304

Wulff, Keith M., 92

Wyon, Olive, 183

Y

Yamauchi, Edwin M., 113, 124, 172, 176, 180, 270

Young, Francis, 781

Z

Zeller, D., 613

Zias, Joseph, 210, 303, 305, 309, 311–12, 319, 351–53

Zugibe, Frederick T., 304, 309–13, 315–16, 323–27, 332

Subject Index

A

Abba, 49, 489

Acts, 286, 420, 458–63, 472, 727–29, 1010
proofs, 894–96
reliability, 888–94
adoptionism, 466–67
afterlife, 952, 958–60, 965, 987–92, 1005
agreement among scholars, 94–96, 103, 343–46, 450–51, 460, 470, 518, 598, 633, 686
angels, 209, 215, 406, 424–25, 651, 654, 662, 664, 725, 788, 791, 810, 835, 839, 882–84
apocalyptic literature, 413

Apocryphon of John, 201
apologies for the faith, 662, 665, 875, 919–23
apostles, 135, 384, 387, 389, 402, 422, 513, 518, 699

Apostolic Fathers, 288–89, 410, 425, 910, 913–33, 936
apostolic kerygma, 392–93, 440, 493, 504, 518, 727, 846, 852, 857, 876

Aramaic words, 49, 261, 417–18, 428, 462, 474, 489, 719, 770, 1009–10
archaeological artifacts, 39
asphyxiation, 305–8, 310–12, 315–16, 321, 329, 341, 351–53, 1009
atheism, 960
atonement, 360–62

B
baptism, 492, 617, 677, 753, 826

Bayes’ Theorem, 539, 541, 545, 954, 1011
bias, 17–18, 66, 77–80, 102
in ancient history, 21–23
blasphemy charge, 353, 355, 357, 466

“blood and water,” 323–24, 329, 893
blood loss, 307
bodily decay, 612–13

C
cardiac arrest, 316, 329
chest wound, 321–27, 329, 333, 1009

Christ, 48, 138, 163, 167–68, 172, 177–78, 180, 185, 730

Christian artwork, 312, 314

Christian influence, 184

Christianity
beginning, 143, 147, 220, 336, 439–40, 702–3, 706–8, 710, 712, 741
converts, 457, 688
early practices, 185, 192–93, 688–89, 705–8, 712, 720, 904, 1015
spread, 210, 217–18, 705–8, 904, 935, 1015
teachings, 216, 291, 423, 440, 446, 448, 457, 469, 476, 493, 515, 754, 763, 767, 917

Christian life, 407, 515–16, 849, 876

Christian worship, 185–86, 216, 465, 492, 626, 707, 714, 720–21, 1014–15

Christology, 387, 442, 447, 464, 489–90, 496–99, 515, 731, 919
chronological snobbery, 14
coherence, 52–53, 339, 554–55, 703, 801, 1009, 1015
collaborative eschatology, 753
collections for Jerusalem churches, 701–2
concentration camps, 311–12
confessions, 286, 442, 448–49, 452, 456, 470, 491
conflation, 899
congestive heart failure, 308, 1009
consensus historical position, 132–33, 146
contextual credibility, 295
creedal formula, 141, 361, 517, 768
creedal traditions, 44, 269, 271, 286, 291–92, 339, 361, 370–81, 384–93, 407, 412, 420, 422, 445–52, 454, 456–58, 469–71, 475, 481–82, 484–85, 491, 503–9, 514–15, 543, 568, 588–89, 615–16, 677, 687, 706, 714, 717–18, 730–32, 757, 769, 774, 797, 855–57, 906–7, 916, 1010–11, 1013
criteria, 485–90
dating, 494–96, 502–3, 509–10, 517–18
liturgical, 491
passing along, 483–86, 768–69, 771
reliability, 500–503, 508
significance, 509–17
use, 492–93
criteria of authenticity, 44–53
critical scholarly views, 254
critical scholars, 96–98
crucifixion, 210, 300, 302–16, 349–52, 643–44
crurifragium, 314–15, 318–21, 323, 327, 330, 332

D

Dead Sea Scrolls, 39
death, 202
death blow, 317–27
deism, 242
demons, 52, 244, 247–48, 258, 264, 277, 417, 549, 766, 989

Didache, 411, 425
disciples, 51, 135, 178, 190, 203, 209, 213, 293, 296, 397, 564, 680, 695, 813, 841–42, 865–66
belief, 222, 338, 410, 420, 425, 435, 466, 530–32, 535–36, 540, 598, 711, 879, 939, 941
calling, 142
community, 136
confession, 134
despair, 133, 145–46, 522, 688–98, 1014
doubt, 416, 427, 529, 535, 659, 818–20, 823–24, 839–40
flee, 133, 136, 298, 415, 427, 461, 522, 529, 542, 544, 605, 690–91, 693, 696, 1011
transformation, 132, 137, 147–49, 222, 337, 339–40, 406, 522–28, 534–40, 542–47, 688, 824, 939–40, 1011
discipleship, 175, 516, 560, 825–26
discontinuity, 47, 261, 462, 473–74, 691, 694
dissimilarity, 47–48, 295–96, 339, 417, 427–28, 691, 1009–10, 1014
divine plan, 252
double dissimilarity, 47, 417, 427–28

E
early reporting, 437–39, 444, 448, 452, 460, 469, 473, 512–13, 543, 588, 688, 710, 721–22, 1010
embarrassment, 50, 260–61, 284, 293, 297–98, 339, 413–16, 427, 461, 473, 525, 544, 552, 569–70, 589, 601–2, 605, 677, 690–91, 694, 764, 800, 848, 1009–14
empty tomb, 47, 52, 135–36, 138, 141, 146, 149, 208, 220–21, 223, 293, 415, 428–29, 462–63, 474, 539, 545, 598–99, 610–17, 619–34, 639–40, 661, 677–78, 680–81, 688, 712, 714, 717–18, 787–88, 808, 832, 835, 841, 863–66, 882–85, 1010, 1014

Hellenistic origin, 602–3
enemy attestation, 51, 258–59, 298–302, 339, 418–19, 428, 462, 474, 544, 569, 589, 624, 801, 1009–14
epigraphy, 38

Epistle of Barnabas, 288, 719, 926–28

Epistles, 44–45, 48, 105, 370, 424, 450, 458, 471–72, 513, 543, 578, 589, 687, 1010, 1012
authorship, 575–76, 578, 709

ESP, 1000–1003
eternal life, 531, 536, 726
evangelicals, 97
evidence, specific, 122, 126
exorcism, 492
expiation, 360
external criticism, 39
eyewitness testimony, 38, 45–46, 260, 271–72, 292–95, 301, 333, 339, 368–69, 376, 382, 384–93, 395, 412, 420, 455, 479, 505–6, 518, 552, 577, 626, 633, 676, 692–94, 698–99, 706, 717, 721–22, 732, 761–62, 768–69, 771, 836–38, 848, 860–61, 886, 888–90, 892–93, 913, 926, 934, 1009, 1013–15

F
faith, 265, 407, 536–37, 820, 824
first day of the week, 712–13, 716, 718–23, 853, 1015
forgiveness of sins, 252, 728, 877

Formsgeschichte, 758

G

Gnosticism, 160, 195–96, 201, 918, 923
gnostic sources, 156, 167, 195, 200, 203, 288

God
intervening action, 243–44
personal, 243
gospel, 341, 367, 379, 382, 391, 407, 422, 438–40, 444–45, 448, 458, 489–90, 504, 540, 543, 689, 707, 725–26, 730, 744, 757, 851, 903–5, 914, 917–19, 1015

Gospel of John
authorship, 863
date, 859
historicity, 329–35, 860, 862

Gospel of Luke, prologue, 836–38

Gospel of Mark
ending, 779–82, 790, 792–93, 796–97, 804
reliability, 777–78, 805
sources, 783–85, 800

Gospel of Peter, 197, 207–8, 215, 318, 411, 425, 657–58, 663–65, 667, 709–10, 727, 813–14

Gospel of the Hebrews, 411, 425

Gospel of the Nazarenes, 667

Gospel of Thomas, 196–99, 411–12, 425, 557, 709–10, 736–40

Gospels, 363–64, 408–9, 424, 458–63, 472, 601, 606, 677, 718, 725–26, 751, 858, 1010, 1014
authorship, 404, 552–53, 694, 773, 924
passion week, 725–26
reliability, 268–72, 406, 414, 626–27, 771, 773–74, 833, 886, 912
sources, 46, 459–60, 613, 620–21, 668, 693, 715, 755, 814
traditioning, 758–62, 767, 770, 886, 1014

Great Commission, 441, 449, 542, 708, 725, 825–26, 851, 877, 904

Greco-Roman biography, 755–56, 774

Greco-Roman history, 115–21, 123–26
grief, 583, 659, 696–97, 879–80

H
healing (modern-day), 274–77, 953
heavenly realm, 987–88
heretics, 492
higher criticism, 39
historical determinism, 10–11
historical facts, 80–85, 132
known, 93, 144–47
historical investigation, 23, 27, 36, 79, 666
historical Jesus research, 132–44, 157
historical positivism, 28
historicity of an event, 92
historiography, 9, 35, 41–43, 131–32, 237
history, 28–34, 65–68
history
critical approach, 13–14
definition of, 15–17, 27
idealistic, 29–30, 65–66
interpretation, 29, 59–60, 81
laws of, 28
philosophy of, 10–13, 63–64
positivistic, 65–66
realistic, 65–66, 82–83
relativistic, 60–61, 65–66
speculative approach, 13–14

Holocaust, the, 76, 85–86

Holy Spirit, 576, 825, 852–53, 876–77, 895–96, 905, 914
homologia, 441–42, 445–48, 452–55, 463, 469–71, 475–79, 504, 513–14, 543–44, 731, 1010, 1015
hospitality, 853

I
inscriptions, 38, 210–11, 217, 348, 570, 629, 681, 817–18, 890
inspiration, 103–4, 106, 113, 129, 338, 417, 687
interpretation, 94, 102

J

James
authorship, 570
belief, 136, 147, 149, 222, 406, 416, 427, 462, 474, 524, 543, 549, 553, 555–60, 568–71, 689, 1011
timing, 559, 562–68, 572
martyrdom, 702

James ossuary, 211–12, 570–71, 1012

Jerusalem, 135, 147, 358, 375–76, 386, 610–11, 614, 635, 677, 688, 698–705, 835, 1013–15

Fall to, 171, 195, 217, 898, 926

Jerusalem Council, 294–95

Jesus
arrest, 136, 542
ascension, 201, 409, 423, 612, 727, 853–56, 905–6, 933
authority, 264, 417, 825
baptism, 135, 142, 464
beating, 207, 214, 330
betrayal, 417, 427–28
birth, 928, 934
body, 642, 674
burial, 133, 146, 207, 215, 293, 297, 299, 367, 406, 415, 427, 604, 614, 622–23, 635–45, 663, 672, 674–77, 680–83, 688, 717, 1013
alternate views on his, 637–39
crucifixion, 133–36, 143, 145–46, 149, 178, 183, 189, 200, 204, 207, 209, 214, 219, 283–85, 293, 337, 343–46, 400, 405, 427, 544, 551, 560, 635, 679, 688, 696, 893, 912, 929, 932–33, 939, 956–57, 1009
date of, 346–49
death, 170, 189, 192, 202, 214–15, 287, 297, 302, 317, 336–39, 341, 343–46, 368, 450, 542, 688, 694–95, 697, 935
reason, 354–58
death and resurrection
centrality of the, 723–47
deity, 185, 253, 442, 464–68, 475, 497–98, 544, 731, 873, 916, 934, 1011
double burial, 646–53
eternal body, 200
exaltation, 855
existence, 165, 212, 224, 301, 909
gnostic sources, 195–201
government sources, 184–88, 204

Jewish sources, 172–80, 188–92
other sources, 182–84, 192–95, 204–9

Roman sources, 167–72, 180–81
exorcist, 52, 145, 209, 213, 248–53, 258, 261, 263–65, 278–79, 598
false accusations against, 190, 192
family, 549–51, 555, 560, 562, 564
healing, 49, 135, 248–54, 258, 260–61, 263–65, 278–80, 540, 954
historical events, 249, 401, 408, 578, 666, 800, 909, 918, 927
historical evidence, 686
identity, 198–99, 202, 213, 447, 450, 464, 954
interrogation, 136

King of the Jews, 194
as Lord, 731
as Messiah, 178, 213, 252, 297, 357, 742, 753, 931
ministry, 142, 179, 212, 358, 724, 929, 934
miracles, 46, 51–52, 138, 145, 178, 203–4, 209, 213, 247, 249–54, 259–63, 272, 278–80, 298, 424, 563–64, 598, 920–21, 929, 934–35
historical criteria, 255–58
mother, 551, 563
nature, 499
nature miracles, 255–56, 258, 261–62, 265–67
opponents, 253–54, 258–59
poverty, 212
power, 252
prayer, 414, 427
predictions, 206–7, 209, 213, 253, 422, 461, 654, 666, 691, 713, 724–26, 791, 798–99, 801–3, 810, 816–17, 879, 901–2, 933, 954
raising the dead, 262, 266, 418, 657
reputation, 134, 142, 178, 195, 212, 668
resurrection, 136, 202, 215, 223, 239–40, 244, 272, 287, 337, 376, 395, 409, 424, 450, 473, 531, 535–36, 546, 617–18, 621, 706–7, 709, 712, 715, 727, 729, 766, 789, 835, 850, 855, 880, 914, 916–17, 929, 935–36, 954
importance, 729, 742, 744, 875–77, 881–82, 919, 936, 1015
naturalistic responses, 942–46, 955
non-bodily, 401, 961
return, 896–903
session, 855
as Son of David, 260

Son of Man statements, 47–48, 198, 801
teachings, 47, 52, 134–35, 142, 193, 198, 213–14, 252, 264, 353–55, 359, 361, 417, 540–41, 545, 714, 727, 934, 954
transfiguration, 765
trial, 207, 214, 353–54
worship of, 209, 213, 464–65, 499, 823, 825–26

Jesus Seminar, 45, 133, 255, 358, 383, 399–400, 440, 455, 475, 500–502, 587, 704, 809, 811, 813, 822–23, 827–32, 870–71

Jewish burial practices, 678, 1013

Jewish law, 644–45, 678

Jewish leaders, 298–300, 317, 333, 357, 462, 623–24, 641–42, 653–54, 659–62, 664, 679–80, 810, 813, 815

Jewish views of resurrection, 752–54, 1014

Jewish views of the afterlife, 621–22

Joseph of Arimathea, tomb of, 637, 639, 641–42, 645–46, 652, 671–73, 677, 683
joy, 880–81

K
kingdom of God, 135, 252, 265, 267, 368, 515, 542, 826, 896–97, 899–902, 935, 939

L

Last Supper, 214, 725–26, 853
laws of nature, 228–31, 233–37, 240–41

Lazarus, resurrection of, 239–40, 262, 266–67, 880

Lord’s Supper, 185, 851
love feast, 185
lower criticism, 40

M
manuscript evidence, 122
martyrdom, 288, 391, 439, 523–24, 526, 528, 534, 545, 570, 590, 1011–12
medical evidence, 302–35, 339
messianic expectations, 296
minimal facts, 686–88
minimal facts method, 3, 41, 89–93, 102, 106–7, 124–29, 139, 151, 254, 343, 346, 406, 686, 858
miracle claims, 249, 254, 273, 947
miracles, 115–21, 123–26, 227–32, 235, 237–47, 251, 268, 585, 769, 884, 892, 947, 956–57
multiple attestation, 46–47, 257, 263, 284–90, 293, 301, 333, 339, 397–400, 408, 412, 423–26, 461, 473–74, 522, 524, 544, 554, 569, 589, 614–15, 674–75, 680, 690, 694, 707, 718, 733, 799, 801, 847, 912, 1009–15
multiple forms, 46, 339, 413, 426–27, 461, 473, 554, 569, 677, 703, 710, 719, 733–34, 739, 801, 847–48, 1009–12, 1015
mythicists, 155, 158–62, 164–65, 179

N
nails, 308, 321, 331, 350–51
naturalistic theories, 949–50, 959–60, 992–1000, 1009, 1012

Nazareth Decree, 212, 1015
near-death experiences, 958, 961, 963–67, 987–1009
continued consciousness, 972–73, 992, 1005
corroboration, 983–87, 998–99
hell accounts, 989
out-of-body observations, 967–71, 973–77, 994, 996
shared, 980–82
sightless persons, 982–83, 987
vision of previously deceased person, 977–80

New Testament, reliability argument, 107–8, 112–15, 127–28

O

Old Testament, 244, 331, 473, 498, 691, 763–64, 851
oral traditions, 291, 481, 758–59, 767

Ordinance of Caesar, 210, 629–30, 817

P

Palestine, 212, 220
parables, 267, 900
paradigm, 56
paradigm shift, 92

Passover, 189, 214, 678

Paul
conversion, 147, 149, 222, 376–77, 380–81, 406, 416, 439, 446, 453, 462, 470, 474, 531, 577, 689, 1010–11
council with apostles, 294, 376–84, 387, 390, 395, 402, 421–22, 439, 453–55, 470–71, 506–7, 543, 554, 568, 586–87, 593, 698–700, 706–9, 732–33, 770, 1010–11
ministry, 577, 728–29, 746–47
transformation, 524–26, 543, 577, 587–89
persecution, 186–87, 217–18, 322, 439, 492, 526–29, 532, 879, 881

Peter
charge from Jesus, 726
denial, 415, 427, 461, 525, 529, 542, 544, 691, 693
restoration, 789–90, 792, 872–73
philosophy, 63–64
piercing bodies, 322–23, 333
pleural effusion, 324

Pontius Pilate, crucifixion order, 133–34, 178–79, 317, 346, 644–45
postmodernism, 56–58, 83–84
affirmative, 58
inconsistency, 74–77
logical fallacy, 72–74
response, 61–64
self-contradiction, 69–72
skeptical, 57
post-mortem chest wound, 322, 326, 328–29, 331, 335, 339, 1009
post-resurrection appearances, 133, 136–37, 141, 145–46, 149, 206, 209, 215–16, 222, 367–69, 372–74, 385, 389, 395–400, 405–6, 408–12, 420–21, 438, 449, 501, 503, 530, 535–36, 538–40, 542, 546–47, 553, 556, 558, 560, 568, 572, 575–86, 688, 694, 700, 711–12, 714, 726, 790–92, 809, 821–23, 832, 835, 846–49, 856, 869–73, 882–85, 894, 896, 905, 935, 939–41, 957–58, 961–62, 1009
to groups, 369, 396–98, 409, 422–23, 463, 505, 819, 869, 884–85, 1010–11
to Mary Magdalene, 398–99, 409, 418, 428, 606, 700, 808–9, 866–69
to Paul, 576–77, 579–86, 588, 591
to Peter, 844–45
on the road to Emmaus, 397, 409, 423, 700, 718, 841–42
power, 243–45
prayer, 274, 953, 966
preaching, 438, 446, 515, 612, 698–702, 1011, 1015
of Stephen, 447
presuppositions, 19, 370, 401, 419, 502, 737, 775, 831, 949
probability, 23–26, 79–80
problem of evil, 959
prophecy fulfillment, 209, 330–31, 851, 874–75, 929–31, 934
psi data, 1000–1001

Q

Q sayings, 44, 197, 256, 412, 736–40

Qur’an, 302

R
religious doubt, 92, 825, 877–78
religious transformation, 532–33
resurrection body, 581, 585, 662, 765, 843, 849–50, 867
resurrection narratives, 141, 146–47, 405–6, 413, 763, 766, 887

Roman confirmation, 1009

Roman guards, 207, 419, 428, 462, 624, 628, 653–60, 662–71, 810–18, 1014

Roman soldiers, 207, 299, 333, 679–80
rule of immediacy, 45–46

S

Sabbath, 317, 646, 653, 717, 719
salvation, 200, 216, 407, 469, 515, 532, 730, 918

Satan, 52, 209, 252, 258, 265, 298, 525, 549, 624, 800

Semitisms, 261, 392, 418, 428, 625, 1014
sermon summaries, 44, 250, 286, 291–92, 374, 392, 395, 397, 407, 412, 418, 439, 450, 452, 470, 472, 511, 513–15, 543, 613, 615, 618–19, 641, 677, 687, 694, 699, 706, 718, 727, 730, 757, 769, 774, 846, 857, 887, 889–90, 906, 1013–15
shock, 308, 311, 313, 316, 352, 1009

Shroud of Turin, 39, 211–12, 214, 302–3, 314, 323, 325–26, 340, 1009
sign of Jonah, 716, 724, 726
signs, 244–45, 253, 878
single attestation, 657–59
source counts, 429–31
sources
early, 44–45, 287, 291–92, 301, 339, 370, 393, 459, 518, 544, 628, 667, 675, 706, 732, 772, 805, 936–37, 1009, 1015
primary, 37–39, 449
secondary, 37
time gap, 118–19, 285, 393, 412, 426, 449–51, 468, 479, 602, 615, 619, 670, 699, 701, 708, 757, 766, 910–11
spear thrust, 306, 318, 321, 323, 330, 332 334– 3
stolen body, 52, 184, 215, 221, 225–26, 623, 640, 648, 652, 668, 680, 811, 932, 947

Strauss critique, 336–39, 341, 1009
subjectivity, 17–18, 77–80
substance dualism, 1005
suffering, 288, 321, 330, 533, 879, 881, 919
supernatural events, 117–21, 239, 947–56
swoon hypothesis, 336

T

Talpiot Tomb, 567, 570, 646–47
teachings about Jesus, 287
temple, 353, 357
destruction of the, 171, 353, 357
thanksgiving, 880–81
third day, 712–16, 718–23, 853, 1015

Third Quest for the historical Jesus, 131, 369, 394, 579, 603

Thomas, faith, 873, 875–77

Toledot Yeshu, 215, 222, 225–26
torture, 170, 184
tradition, 38

Treatise on Resurrection, 202–3

V
virgin birth, 118, 190, 209, 212, 373

W
women, 51, 135–36, 143, 215, 292, 294, 297, 409, 415, 423, 427, 461, 539, 545, 599–607, 625, 627, 639, 661, 663, 669, 677, 680, 691, 764, 785–86, 789, 792–95, 803–4, 807–9, 835, 838–39, 848, 863–65, 882–83, 1014
worldview, 20–21, 56, 262, 827–28, 831

Scripture Index

Genesis

4:15 244

Exodus

3 931

10:13 229

14:21 229

Numbers

11:31 229

Deuteronomy

17:6 600

18:17–22 902

19:15 600

21:22–23 297, 350, 644, 678, 683

21:23 638

22:23 415

Psalms

21 931

22 931

80:17 355

110 355

Daniel

7 931

7:13–14 355

12:2 765, 850

Hosea

6:2 714, 720

13:14 881

Joel

2:32 731

Zechariah

13:7 691

Matthew

6:30 820

6:33 896

8:11–12 52

8:26 820

8:28–34 842

9:18–19 266

9:23–26 266

10 899

10:1 766

10:5–7 768

10:7–8 766

10:14 768

10:16 441, 768

10:18 768

10:22–23 708

10:23 897–98

10:37 889

11:1–6 802

11:2–6 769

11:2–11 424

11:4 769

11:19 267

11:25–27 464, 475

11:28 441

11:38 424

12 715

12:38–40 245, 714–15, 718, 724, 798, 801–2, 933

12:38–42 250, 424, 660, 878

12:40 461, 878

13:55–57 416

14:21 396

14:28 824

14:29–31 820

14:31 819–20

15:29–31 260

15:38 396

16 715

16:1–4 245, 250, 660, 714–15, 724, 802, 878, 933

16:2–4 798

16:4 878

16:13–17 198

16:18 708, 726

16:21 461, 713

16:28 897

17:9 765

17:20 820

17:23 461, 713

18:15–18 441

18:17 708

18:17–19 708, 726

19:28 441

20:19 461, 713

20:28 362, 724

20:32 418

23:29–39 799

24:1–3 898, 901

24:9 899

24:34 900–901

24:48 900

25:19 900

26:28 362

26:31–34 691

26:32 654

26:37–39 414

26:56 298, 415, 522, 605

26:57 784

26:58 525

26:61 461

26:69–75 415, 522, 525

27 671, 826

27:2 839, 918

27:11 656, 918

27:12 679

27:14 918

27:15 918

27:19 645

27:20 679

27:27 918

27:27–37 299

27:31 189

27:39–43 298

27:40 461

27:41 679

27:46 415, 418

27:54 299

27:55 415, 676

27:55–56 292, 680, 808, 839, 863

27:57 679

27:57–58 655

27:57–60 293, 636, 679

27:58 299

27:61 292, 625, 636, 680, 808, 838

27:62 653, 655

27:62–28:1–4 418

27:62–66 299, 462, 665, 679, 810–11, 1014

27:63 461, 660, 668–69

27:63–64 654, 713

27:64 660

27:65 656, 810

27:65–66 810

27:66 629, 662, 681, 818

28 819, 826, 831

28:1 461, 625, 717, 807, 838

28:1–7 680, 807–8, 849

28:1–10 599

28:2 663

28:2–4 811

28:3 662

28:3–4 765

28:4 653, 663

28:5 663, 794

28:8 793–94

28:8–9 866, 881

28:8–10 700, 725, 809, 821–22, 827, 846–47

28:9 662–63, 793–94, 808–96

28:9–10 398, 409, 463, 474, 663, 870, 883

28:9b 795

28:10 794

28:11–14 299

28:11–15 52, 215, 220, 225, 258, 418, 623, 629, 653, 665, 680, 811, 813, 932

28:11–16 810–18

28:14 655, 810, 918

28:15 184

28:15b 680

28:16 818

28:16–17 725

28:16–20 397, 409, 463, 474, 820–22, 827, 846–47, 883

28:17 51, 416, 465, 555, 818–21, 823, 840, 877, 881

28:17a 795

28:17b 690, 795

28:18 819, 825

28:18–20 438, 441, 530, 607, 708, 725, 766, 821–26, 832

28:18a 819, 867

28:19 826

28:19–20 877

28:19a 508

28:55–56 838

Mark

1:14–15 839, 896

1:21–28 265, 277

1:21–34 695

1:22–23 840

1:24 265, 418

1:44 795

2:1–12 250, 258, 475, 802

2:5–12 802

2:20 798

3 550, 552, 559

3:1–6 52

3:20–21 549–50, 562, 565, 571, 1011

3:20–22 524

3:20–25 50

3:21 50, 550, 558–59, 563, 565–66

3:21–22 416

3:21f 561

3:22 258

3:22–27 52, 252

3:22–30 549

3:31 565, 1011

3:31–32 550

3:31–34 558

3:31–35 416, 524, 550, 566, 571

4:41 780

5:1–20 842

5:15 780

5:21–24 266

5:33 780

5:35–43 266

5:36 780

5:39–42 258

5:41 49, 418

5:41–42 489

6 552

6:1–6 524, 550

6:2b–6 572

6:3 416

6:3–4 1011

6:4 550

6:7 441

6:7–13 607

6:12 607

6:17–28 799

6:30–46 267

6:44 396

6:50 780

7:3 486, 768

7:31–37 260

7:34 418, 489

8:9 396

8:24 489

8:27–30 198

8:31 408, 424, 461, 713, 719, 724, 791, 798

8:31–33 51, 297, 525

8:32 659

8:32–33 800, 810

9:1 897

9:2–9 765

9:3 788

9:6 780

9:9 791, 798

9:9–10 765

9:9–20 796

9:10 810

9:12 798

9:14–29 261

9:19 261

9:30–31 791, 798

9:30–32 525

9:31 461, 713, 719, 724

9:31–32 51, 297

9:31b–32 408, 424

9:32 659, 780, 800, 810

9:35 810

9:42–49 896

10 724

10:29–31 52, 659

10:31 810

10:32 659

10:32–34 51, 525, 724

10:33–34 297, 408, 424, 719, 791, 798

10:34 461, 713

10:35–40 695

10:38 798

10:38–39 708, 726

10:45 360–62, 724–25, 798

10:46 49

10:46–52 259

10:47 260

10:48 260

10:51 49, 260, 418, 489

12:1–12 724, 798, 801

12:18–27 52

13 898

13:9–10 904

13:10 899

13:30 897–98, 900

13:32 51, 475, 898, 901–2

14:8 798

14:18–28 724

14:21 798

14:22–24 487

14:22–25 725

14:24 360–62

14:27–28 397

14:27–30 691

14:27–31 51, 297, 525

14:28 408, 422, 424, 654, 791, 798

14:28–31 810

14:30–32 798

14:32–40 724

14:33–36 414

14:36 49, 464, 475, 489

14:45 361

14:50 298, 415, 522, 605

14:53–65 466

14:54 525

14:58 461

14:60–64 48

14:61 353, 466

14:61–62 465–66

14:61–64 353–56, 475

14:62 355

14:66–72 415, 522, 525, 690

15 673

15:2–5 645

15:3 679

15:6–15 645

15:11 679

15:12–15 354

15:13 189

15:14 189

15:15–26 299

15:20 189

15:27 189

15:29 461

15:29–32 298

15:31 679

15:34 414–15, 418, 462, 474

15:39 299

15:40 415, 676, 785, 808

15:40–41 292, 680, 808, 838–39, 863

15:41 786

15:42–43 299

15:42–46 679

15:42–47 672, 682

15:43 642

15:43–46 293, 636

15:44–45 293, 299, 312, 636, 679

15:45 293

15:47 292, 620, 636, 680, 785, 838, 863

15:55–60 353

15:61–64 354

16 603, 638, 790, 803

16:1 461, 620, 625, 661, 717, 785–86, 808, 838

16:1–3 292

16:1–8 287, 599, 614, 620, 634, 680, 780, 783, 787, 790, 805, 812

16:2 625, 717, 719

16:4–5 787–88

16:5 663, 788–89, 839

16:5–6 620

16:6 789

16:6–7 792

16:7 397, 422, 424, 605, 620, 700, 789–92, 794, 844, 883, 885

16:7–8 780–81

16:7a 408–9

16:8 620, 779–83, 790, 792–96, 803–4, 808

16:9 424, 700, 718, 809, 866

16:9–11 398, 524, 822

16:9–20 796–97

16:10–11 690

16:11 535, 555, 877

16:12 424, 581, 625, 842, 867

16:12–13 397, 700, 822

16:12–20 409

16:13 535, 555, 877

16:13–14 416, 690

16:14 535, 555, 819, 877

16:14–15 821

16:14–18 397, 700, 822

16:14–20 397, 424

16:15 826

16:15–16 441, 877

16:15–18 708

16:15–20 438, 530

16:19–20 700

16:20 536, 877

19:39 636

24:13–35 700

Luke

1:1–4 121, 459, 508, 693–94, 707, 754, 766–67, 769, 783, 799, 836–38, 848, 859–63, 873, 885, 888–94, 906, 926

2 892

2:12 245

3:1 348

3:4–6 851

4:17–20 851

4:20 767

4:24 565

4:33–34 418

7:11–17 266

7:18–20 878

7:18–23 537, 768–69

7:18–28 424, 825

7:18–30 821

7:22 769

7:24 769

7:27 851

7:28 821, 878

7:33–34 267

7:49 475

8:26–39 842

8:40–42 266

8:49–56 266

8:54–55 418

9:16 851

9:18–21 198

9:22 461

9:27 897

9:40 418

10:1–2 766

10:9–11 766

10:17 766

10:19 441

10:21–22 464, 475

10:25–37 907

11:20 252, 802

11:29 245, 724

11:29–30 714, 719, 724

11:29–32 424, 715, 933

11:30 461

11:32 714

11:47–51 799

11:49 768

12:24 845

13:10–17 258

13:28–29 52, 853

13:31–33 424, 798

13:32 461

13:32–33 724

14:26 889

14:27 424

16:22–31 266

16:31 878

17:22 900

18:33 461

18:41 418

19:11–27 900

20:3–9 606

20:14–18 606

20:17–19 851

20:41–44 851

21 898

21:12–24 902

21:16 899

21:20 926

21:20–32 901

21:24 899, 926

21:32 900–902

22:7–30 853

22:14–20 487

22:15–20 724

22:28–30 441

22:30 853

22:34 691

22:37 851

22:42 414

22:43 414–15

22:54 293

22:54–62 525

22:56–62 415

22:56–66 522

22:61–62 293

23:4 679

23:10 679

23:13 679

23:26 299

23:27–28 838

23:27–31 292, 691

23:34 299

23:35 298, 679

23:36–38 299

23:39 189

23:47–48 299

23:48 298

23:49 292, 676, 808, 838, 863

23:50 642, 679

23:50–53 293, 636

23:50–54 679

23:50–56 642

23:52 299

23:53 680

23:55 676, 808, 863

23:55–56 292, 636, 680, 838

23:56 717

24 397, 399, 625, 830, 835–36, 838, 845, 856, 883, 905

24:1 292, 461, 522, 661, 717–18, 838–39, 853

24:1–2 293

24:1–8 680

24:1–9 599

24:2 849

24:4 839, 905

24:4–5 765

24:5 625, 794

24:7 461

24:10 416, 625, 808, 838–39, 863

24:11 535, 601, 607–8, 690, 839, 877

24:12 293, 399, 415, 606, 841–42, 844, 865, 886

24:13–32 625

24:13–35 397, 883

24:13–49 700

24:13–53 409, 586

24:15–16 850

24:16 581, 842–43, 867

24:19–21a 659

24:19–24 718

24:20–21 695

24:21 718

24:21a 690

24:21b 853

24:22–23 835

24:22–24 293

24:23 839

24:24 399, 415, 606, 841–42, 865, 886

24:25–27 850

24:26 763

24:28–29 853

24:28–32 853

24:30 849

24:30–31 851

24:31b 850, 905

24:32 536, 850

24:33 848

24:34 372, 399, 409, 420, 449, 451, 457, 471, 484, 490, 498, 508, 514, 524, 725, 740, 771, 790, 792, 822, 844–45, 847–48, 883, 885–86, 893

24:36 850

24:36–38 51

24:36–39 397

24:36–40 870

24:36–42 840, 917

24:36–43 410, 416, 555, 690, 725, 768, 812, 846–49

24:36–48 769

24:36–49 821, 846–47, 869, 883, 886, 893

24:36–53 463, 474, 794

24:37 794, 848–49, 869

24:37–38 690

24:37–42 877

24:38 869

24:38–40 849

24:38b 795

24:39 331

24:39–40 895

24:39–41a 870

24:41 819, 881

24:41–42 849

24:41–43 896

24:41b 795

24:44–47 850

24:44–49 849–53

24:45–47 763

24:45–48 707, 802

24:45–49 441, 607

24:45–53 438, 530

24:46 461, 725, 853

24:46–48 440

24:46–49 725, 766

24:47 725, 877, 899

24:47–48 851, 877

24:48 694, 725, 768, 877

24:48–49 826

24:49 852, 896

24:50–51 850

24:50–52 883

24:50–53 853–56

24:51 905

24:52 881

24:52–53 536, 795, 853

25:55–56 838

John

1:1 873

1:7–8 768

1:14 768

1:15 768

1:19 768

1:29 798

1:31 330

1:32 768

1:33 330

1:34 768

2:1–11 267, 564

2:3–5 551, 554

2:4 267

2:6 330

2:11 564–65

2:11–12 563

2:12 551, 554, 564–66

2:18–22 726

2:19 461

2:19–22 798

2:20 719

2:23–25 563

3:5 330

3:13 854

3:14 798

3:14–15 726

3:22 564

3:26 768

3:28 768

3:32 768

4:2 492, 564

4:7–8 564

4:14 330

4:22 702

4:27 564

4:31–38 564

4:39 768

4:44 565

4:48 565

5:2 330, 860

5:17 464

5:18 799

5:31–32 768

5:36–40 802

6:1 872

6:1–15 267

6:3–24 564

6:62 854

6:66 565, 572

6:70–71 564

7 552, 559

7:1 563, 799

7:1–4 551

7:1–5 524

7:3 564–65

7:3–4 554

7:3–5 416, 562

7:5 50, 551, 554, 558–59, 561–66, 568, 572, 1011

7:8 564

7:9 564

7:10 564

7:25 799

8:14 854

8:21 854

8:37 799

8:40 799

8:28 798

8:58–59 189

8:59 799

9:1–7 123

9:7 330

10:15 798

10:17–18 798, 802

10:25–26 802

10:31 189

10:31–33 799, 802

10:33 189

10:37–39 250

10:39 189

11 880

11:1–16 879

11:1–44 266

11:8 551, 799

11:21–27 840

11:25 542, 880

11:35–38 880

11:40–45 802

11:47–48 258

11:50–52 726

12:1–3 880

12:7 798

12:17 768

12:27–30 125

12:28–30 840

12:32–33 726, 798

13:1 726

13:3 854

13:5 330

13:33 726, 854

13:36 854

14:1–3 726

14:4–5 854

14:9–11 802

14:11 250

14:18–19 726

14:19 876

14:26 768

14:28 854

14:28–30 726

15:24 802

15:27 768

16:2 899

16:5 854

16:5–7 726

16:10 854

16:16–22 726

16:17 854

16:28 726, 854

17:13 726

18:15–17 690

18:15–18 525

18:25–27 522, 525, 690

18:28–31 679

18:31 354

18:35–38 645

18:38–40 679

19:6–7 679

19:8 645

19:8–11 645

19:12 354, 679

19:13 860

19:15–16 679

19:16–19 299

19:21–22 298, 679

19:23–24 299

19:25–27 292, 551, 572, 680

19:26–27 293

19:31 298, 679

19:31–32 332

19:31–35 317

19:31–37 334

19:32 318

19:32–34 299

19:33–35 333

19:34 323, 325, 329–35

19:35 293, 318, 333–34, 508, 768, 862, 873, 877, 885, 888, 890, 893

19:36–37 330, 334

19:38 299, 636, 679

19:38–42 293, 679

19:39 293

19:42 717

20 397, 399, 625, 841, 845, 866, 868–69, 871

20:1 461, 717, 719, 863–65

20:1–2 297, 599, 814

20:1–17 680

20:2 808, 864, 882–84

20:2–9 293, 841

20:2–10 399, 845

20:3–9 415

20:3–10 865–66, 886

20:9 535, 764

20:10–17 794

20:10–18 524

20:11–18 398, 809, 814, 866–69

20:13 864

20:13–16 726

20:14 581, 843, 867

20:14–15 819, 842

20:14–18 883

20:14–29 409

20:15 864

20:15b 690

20:16 418, 462, 474, 881

20:16–17 793, 809

20:16–23 700

20:17 853–54, 870

20:19 51, 298, 461, 522, 695, 795, 848, 869

20:19–20 690

20:19–21 397, 769, 821, 846–47, 870, 886

20:19–23 397, 726, 846, 868, 870, 883

20:19–29 794

20:19–31 869–71

20:20 331, 536, 840, 870

20:20–21 881

20:20–23 875–82

20:20b 795

20:21 438, 877

20:21–23 607, 707, 766

20:22 877

20:23 877

20:24 871

20:24–25 51, 535

20:24–28 819, 840, 873

20:24–29 416, 555, 690, 726, 840, 870, 883

20:25 331

20:26 707, 719

20:26–28 847

20:26–29 825, 870, 877–78

20:27 331, 768

20:28 873–75, 877

20:28–29 536

20:29 873, 878

20:29–31 707, 875–82

20:30–31 413, 726

20:31 438, 607, 727, 877

21 658, 867, 871–73

21:1 872

21:1–23 409, 883

21:4 819, 842, 872

21:4b 690

21:8 690, 819, 843, 872

21:8b 843

21:9 872

21:12 690

21:14 872

21:15–17 766

21:15–19 840

21:15–22 727

21:15–23 399

21:18–19 410, 522, 545, 872, 875–82

21:19–2 893

21:19–21 893

21:20 865, 873

21:20–23 863, 873

21:22–23 871, 873

21:24 387, 404, 508, 726, 863, 865, 871–73, 875–82, 885, 888

21:26–29 893

21:35 863

Acts

1 822, 905

1:1 888

1:1–2 836, 888–94, 906

1:1–3 694

1:1–11 5, 409, 586, 707, 727, 883, 887–907

1:3 423, 727, 838, 894–96, 906–7

1:3–4 821, 896

1:4–5 877, 895

1–5 615, 693, 783, 889, 906

1:6–7 896–903

1:8 438, 441, 607, 701, 707, 766, 768, 826, 851, 877, 899, 903–5

1:8a 852

1:9 850, 905

1:9–11 853–54, 905–6

1:10 905

1:10–11 883

1:12–14 505, 524

1:13–14 294

1:14 294, 554–55, 560, 564, 568, 572, 702, 1011

1:15 396, 869, 1011

1:15–20 692

1:15–26 295

1:21 438

1:21–22 396, 452, 770, 852

1:21–23 768

1:21–26 707

1:22 387, 607, 727, 889–90

1:22b 881

1:26 396

2 618, 675, 706, 821

2:1 295

2–5 392, 730, 769

2:14 699, 904

2:14–36 418, 615

2:14–39 674

2:14–41 904

2:14–47 711

2:16–21 852

2:22–24 250, 407, 517, 727, 802

2:22–28 874

2:22–36 286, 440, 452, 706–7, 852, 876

2:22–41 439

2:23–32 730

2:25 498, 730

2:29 674, 699

2:29–31 613

2:29–32 618, 642, 674, 677, 1014

2:29–36 341

2:31 498, 674, 730

2:31–32 874

2:31–36 876

2:32 374, 420, 484, 514, 694, 768, 885, 889

2:32–36 407, 802

2:33 852

2:33–35 730

2:36 498, 615, 730

2:37 674

2:37–41 515

2:38 498

2:38–39 418

2:41 396, 706

2:41–47 522

2:42 904

2:42–8:3 904

2:42–47 295, 439, 705, 905

3 821

3:1 295

3:6 492

3:12–16 727

3:12–26 418, 439, 802

3:13–15 707

3:13–16 286, 452, 852

3:13–20 440

3:13–26 874

3:13b 699

3:14–15 730

3:15 374, 420, 470, 484, 514, 730, 768, 885, 889–90

3:15b 694

3:16 515

3:18 498, 707

3:18–19 730

3:20 498

3:26 730

4:1–4 515, 522

4:2 530, 536, 545, 707, 727, 876, 881

4:2–4 543

4:4 396, 439, 706, 904

4:8–10 286, 452, 852

4:8–12 418, 802

4:8–21 522

4:8–22 439

4:10 420, 498, 514, 707, 730, 876

4:10–11 730

4:10b–12 440

4:12 515

4:13–20 544

4:18–20 545

4:19–20 543

4:23–33 295

4:26 498

4:29–35 522

4:31 544–45

4:32–34 876

4:33 498, 530, 536, 707, 727, 730, 881

5 821

5:17–32 522

5:17–40 418, 802

5:18–19 295

5:27–32 439

5:29–32 286, 440, 452, 515, 543, 545, 707, 852, 876

5:29–33 544

5:30–32 374, 420, 470, 484, 514, 730, 876

5:31 730

5:32 694, 768, 852, 889

5:33 498

5:36–37 892

5:40–41 544, 879

5:40–42 522, 543

5:41 881

5:41–42 295, 853

6:1–6 439

6:6b 439

6:7 555

6:7b 294, 419, 428, 462, 474, 544, 589

7 416

7:54–8:3 692

7:54–60 439, 525, 545, 589, 879

7:55–56 447

7:56 48

7:57 48

7:57–8:2 189

7:57–60 522

7:58 446

7:59 447

8:1 295, 446, 701

8:1–3 439

8:4–12:24 904

8:14 295

8:36–38 492

9 423, 591, 814, 1012

9:1–2 416, 524, 526, 692

9:1–9 453, 577

9:3 850

9:3–8 377, 420

9:3–9 416, 850

9:3–19 398

9:7 582

9:8–9 582

9:13–14 526

9:17 582, 586

9:20 498

9:21 524, 526

9:22 498

9:23–24 699

9:26 526

9:26–30 295

9:27 582, 586

9:32–10:9 699

10 392, 615, 693, 727, 730, 769, 783, 821–22, 889, 906

10:24–25 708

10:34–43 439, 462, 719, 802, 852

10:34–53 418

10:35–38 489

10:36 498, 728, 730

10:36–43 876

10:37 727

10:38–43 440, 847

10:39 694, 768, 889

10:39–41 407, 420, 514, 718, 728, 730

10:39–42 397, 470

10:39–43 286, 374, 452, 846

10:40 461, 718–19, 885

10:41 694, 768, 849, 889

10:42–43 515, 728

11:2 699

11:25–26 295

12:1–2 545, 879

12:1–3 522

12:1–16 840

12:1–19 811

12:19 299, 811

12:25–28:31 904

13 392, 615, 618–20, 641, 675, 693, 727–28, 730, 769, 783, 821–22, 889, 906

13:16–41 439, 615, 674, 802

13:23 730

13:23–39 874

13:26 728

13:26–31 847

13:26–35 728

13:26–39 440

13:27–29 641

13:27–37 730

13:27–39 876

13:28–29 619, 641–42

13:28–31 286, 452, 470, 613, 852

13:28–32 618

13:28–37 618, 1014

13:29 641–42, 682

13:29–31 407, 420, 514

13:29–39 876

13:30 641

13:30–31 374, 484, 885

13:31 694, 699, 768, 889

13:32–33 615

13:33 498, 730

13:34–37 642, 674, 677

13:38–39 407, 515, 728, 847

14:19–20 545, 589

15 294–95, 373, 430, 439, 709, 770

15:1–29 525, 699

15:1–31 554, 572–73, 590

15:1–35 439, 506–7, 525

15:2 440

15:5 709

15:7 699

15:7–11 440, 506

15:12–19 416

15:13 699

15:13–19 524

15:13–21 440, 506, 572, 1011

15:19 572

15:19–21 568

15:25 506

15:28 506

15:31 506

15:36–41 526, 692

16:10–17 889

16:22–24 545, 589

17 392, 728, 889

17:1–3 852

17:1–4 250, 440, 874

17:2 728

17:2–3 728

17:2–4 876

17:3 452, 498

17:16–34 921

17:22–31 439

17:22–34 250

17:30–31 286, 440, 452, 515, 517, 852, 876

17:31 374, 420, 484, 514, 728

17:32–34 728

18:2 180, 817

19:39 708

20:5–15 889

20:6 707

20:7 461, 626, 714, 720

21:1–18 889

21:13 522

21:17–20 295

21:17–26 416

22 423, 591, 814, 1012

22:1–11 577

22:1–16 398

22:3–5 416, 524, 526

22:4 587, 589

22:4–5 692

22:6 850

22:6–11 377, 416, 420, 453, 850

22:9 582, 850

22:11 582, 850

22:20 692

23:8 660

25:11 522

26 423, 591, 814, 1012

26:5 416

26:9–11 416, 524

26:9–12 526

26:9–18 398

26:9–19 577

26:10 692

26:10–11 692

26:12–18 416, 453, 850

26:12–20 377, 420

26:13 582, 850

26:14 582

26:16 582, 586

26:22–25 874

27:1–28:16 889

27:13–40 545

28:23–24 896

Romans

1 921

1:1–5 515

1:1–7 730

1:3 508

1:3–4 286, 341, 374, 379, 407, 420, 440, 444, 451, 470, 475, 484, 492, 498, 514, 517, 730, 769, 771, 876, 915

1:4 498

1:9 498

4:23–25 515

4:24 498, 844

4:24–25 353, 407, 451, 876

4:25 286, 374, 379, 420, 444, 487, 514

5:8 457, 471, 487

5:10 498

6:1–14 729

6:3–4 617, 677

6:4–5 876

6:5–11 458, 472

6:8–14 876

8:3 498

8:5–13 876

8:9–11 729

8:9–23 458, 472

8:11 408, 457, 471, 487, 617

8:15–17 498

8:17 498

8:18–23 408

8:29 498

8:32 498

8:34 451, 487, 498, 854–55

10:9 341, 374, 379, 420, 440, 444, 451, 470, 475, 484, 486, 492, 498, 514, 731, 771, 844, 876, 1015

10:9–10 286, 341, 469, 769

10:9–11 515

10:9–13 407

10:10 442

10:10–13 731

14:5–6a 707

14:8 524

14:8–9 487

14:9 457, 471

15:13 532, 543

15:25 702

15:25–27 701

15:26 702

15:27 701

15:31b 701

16:21a 387

16:22 387

1 Corinthians

1:1 387

1:21 731

1:21–25 415

1:23 297

2:13 508

2:16 731

6:14 424, 825, 876

8:6 286, 374, 457, 471, 475, 484, 492, 771

9:1 137, 287, 371, 384, 388, 398, 408, 412, 416, 420, 453, 458, 470–71, 484, 500, 518, 538, 577, 592, 722, 797, 814, 885, 1009

9:5 544, 569, 572–73

9:5–6 373, 525

9:24–27 590

10:26 731

11 799

11:2 378, 380, 483, 486, 767–68

11:23 361, 380, 475, 482, 498, 518, 706, 767, 799

11:23–25 286, 378, 449, 487, 491, 705

11:23–26 291, 361, 374, 379–80, 407, 451, 486, 517, 768, 770–71

11:23–32 515

11:23ff 378

11:24–25 724

11:24–26 798, 801

11:26 498

12:3 451, 475, 487, 492, 498

12:12 491

13:3–7 771

14:37–38 508

15 164, 381, 384, 386, 395, 402, 449, 491, 581, 588, 592, 617–18, 628, 640, 711, 715, 797, 835, 847, 881, 940

15:1 498

15:1–2 491, 730

15:1–3 767

15:1–7 373, 515

15:1–8 135

15:1–11 402, 449, 607

15:1–20 729

15:1–58 372

15:3 137, 164, 372, 380, 386, 389, 421, 444, 461, 482, 484, 489, 498, 503, 507, 517, 568, 587, 714, 717–18, 732, 845

15:3–4 291, 341, 353, 615, 675–76, 1014

15:3–5 291, 380, 386, 388, 397, 450, 454, 487–88, 492, 501, 517, 672, 718, 725, 730, 744, 784, 799, 1015

15:3–7 111, 141, 257, 286, 290–91, 294, 370–97, 408, 418, 420–23, 426, 428, 432, 444, 449–51, 453, 456, 462, 469–71, 474, 482, 484, 486–90, 502, 504, 511, 514, 553–55, 568, 593, 607, 641, 717, 722, 741, 764, 768, 770–71, 797, 823, 846, 857, 884–85, 940, 1010

15:3–8 44, 138, 361, 367, 381, 386, 407, 482, 492, 500, 506, 535, 538, 577, 729, 821–22, 941

15:3–11 372

15:3–20 736

15:3b–5 418, 487–88

15:3ff 378

15:4 675–77, 714–15, 719

15:4b 715

15:5 396, 486, 739, 790, 792, 814, 845, 847

15:5–7 562

15:5–8 867

15:5a 399, 524, 845

15:5b 397, 456, 463, 474

15:6 396, 486, 504

15:6b 875

15:7 396, 399, 416, 456, 524, 557–58, 560, 847, 1011

15:7a 399, 553, 555–56, 568, 572

15:7b 397, 423, 463, 474

15:8 287, 371, 376, 384, 388–89, 398, 408, 412, 416, 420, 453, 458, 470, 500, 505, 518, 564, 587, 592, 641, 722, 797, 814, 845, 850, 885, 1009

15:8–9 555, 692

15:8–10 505

15:8–11 373

15:8–58 458, 471

15:9 524, 577, 587

15:9–11 382

15:11 294, 373, 378, 383, 386, 389, 391, 402, 407, 419, 421–22, 439, 452, 455, 458, 471–72, 475–76, 502–3, 505, 507, 513, 538, 586, 593, 662, 722–23, 729, 732, 770, 857, 1010

15:11–15 421, 508, 514, 544

15:11–19 373, 389, 421, 525

15:12 408, 505

15:12–19 338, 734

15:12–20 540, 709, 725, 729

15:14 505, 535, 729

15:14–15 505

15:15 457, 471, 729

15:15b–16 729

15:17 535, 729

15:17–19 535

15:18 729, 876

15:19 421, 508, 729

15:20 535, 729

15:20–23 876

15:30–32 524, 545

15:32 729

15:35–49 581

15:35–50 579

15:35–57 408, 729, 843, 867

15:37–38 581, 867

15:37–44 843

15:39 581

15:40–41 581

15:41 581

15:41b 867

15:42–44 581

15:42–50 535

15:53–57 535, 876

15:53–58 532

15:54–57 881

15:58 825

15:58–16:2 876

15:58–16:4 535, 825

16:1 461, 702

16:1–2 720

16:1–4 701

16:2 626, 707, 714, 717

16:19 708

16:22 462, 474, 489, 498

2 Corinthians

1:1 387

1:1–7 709

1:19 498

2:11 498

4 881

4:5 498

4:7–5:10 458, 472

4:7–12 589, 881

4:7–14 524

4:7–18 709, 729, 879

4:8–12 545

4:14 424, 487, 876

4:14–15 881

4:14–18 536

4:16–18 589, 881

7:5–7 589

8:1–9:15 701

9:1 702

9:12 702

10:17 731

11:23–29 589

11:23–32 524

11:23–33 545

11:32 453

11:32–33 416

13:13 706, 826

Galatians

1 390, 447, 701, 722, 770

1:1 372, 379, 447, 498

1:1–2 378

1–2 385, 387, 439, 496, 554, 563, 593

1:3 447, 498

1:4 457, 471

1:6 447

1:6–9 378

1:6–12 378

1:7 447

1:8–9 770

1:9 378

1:10 447

1:11–12 372

1:13 526

1:13–14 416, 524, 526, 577, 587

1:13–21 453

1:15–16 373

1:15–18a 447

1:16 447, 498, 576

1:16b–17a 373

1:17 377

1:18 373, 377–78, 382, 390–91, 416, 470, 513, 590, 618, 661

1:18–2:10 46, 502, 508, 513, 544, 590

1:18–19 698, 1010

1:18–20 294, 377, 391, 402, 421–22, 452, 454–55, 470, 506–7, 525, 538, 572–73, 586, 661, 699, 708, 722, 732, 1010–11

1:18–21 439, 568

1:19 164, 557

1:20 508, 768

1:21–24 526

1:22 447

1:22–24 708–9

1:23 376, 526, 692

1:23–24 589

2 294–95, 391, 439, 700–701, 709, 722, 770

2:1 348, 471

2:1–2 573

2:1–10 294, 373, 379, 382, 402–3, 407, 422, 439–40, 452, 455, 471, 475, 506–7, 525, 538, 568, 572, 586, 641, 661, 699, 708, 722, 732, 1010–11

2:2 379, 391, 402, 422, 455, 471, 506, 770

2:3–4 709

2:5 378

2:6 383, 419, 506, 586, 770

2:6b 391, 402, 422, 439, 455, 471

2:9 294, 383, 402, 419, 422, 455, 471, 506, 553, 586, 699, 770

2:9a 391

2:9–10 439

2:11–14 373, 402, 513, 692

2:11–16 526

2:12 513

2:14 378, 513

2:16 379

2:19–21 379

2:20 576

3:1–3 378–79

3:13 189

3:13–14 498

3:28 491, 576

4:4 498, 508

4:4–7 826

4:6 498, 576

5:4 378

5:7 378

6:10 825

Ephesians

1:11–14 708

1:18–21 424, 515

1:19–23 855

1:20 457, 471, 487, 498, 854

2:4–7 708

2:6–7 424

2:8–10 407

2:20 544

4:5 492

4:8 855

4:8–10 854

Philippians

1:1 387

1:8 447

1:9 447

1:10 447

1:11 498

1:20–24 524, 545

1:21 581

1:21–23 536

2:5 508

2:5–11 487

2:6 475, 499

2:6–11 286, 374, 444, 447, 451, 467, 484, 487, 491–92, 499, 515, 771

2:11 447, 498

2:28 589

3 447

3:3 447

3:4–6 416, 483, 524, 526

3:4–7 577, 587

3:7 447

3:8 447

3:10 424, 490

3:10–21 729

3:11 424

3:12–14 590

3:20–21 408, 536, 876

3:21 424, 843, 867

4:3b 913

Colossians

1:1 387, 404, 458

1:15–17 508

1:15–20 457, 467, 471, 484, 487

1:18 424

2:6 498

2:9 499

3:1 855

3:1–4 203, 424

3:1–11 458, 472

3:1–17 708

4:7–14 458

1 Thessalonians

1:1 387, 447, 498

1:9–10 374, 447, 498, 515, 706

1:10 451, 487, 498, 508

4:13 537, 542

4:13–14 540, 729, 880

4:13–18 458, 472, 876

4:14 374, 424, 451, 487

4:14–18 408

4:18 880

2 Thessalonians

1:2 410

1:7b–10 410

2:1 410

2:8 410

2:15 483, 486, 768

2:16–17 410

3:3–5 410

3:6 483, 486, 768

3:16 410

1 Timothy

1:15 484, 486, 508, 768, 799

2:5–6 487

2:6 286

3:1 484, 486, 508, 768, 799

3:16 374, 457, 471, 484, 486–87, 515, 771, 854

4:9 484, 768, 799

4:9–10 486, 508

6:12–16 492

6:13 508

6:13b 486

2 Timothy

1:8–11 730

2:2 768

2:8 341, 424, 457, 471, 730

2:8–9 876

2:8–13 708

2:11 424, 457, 471, 730

2:11–13 484, 486–87, 491, 508, 768, 771, 799

4:6–8 590

4:16–18 590

Titus

1:9 483–84, 486, 508, 768

3:5 407

Philemon

1:1 387

2 708

3 410

Hebrews

1:3 457, 471, 475, 487, 499, 855

2:1–4 508

2:3 544

2:10 330

2:14–15 203

4:14 508, 854

4:15 330

5:8–9 330

7:23–28 708

8:1 855

10:11–12 708

10:12 855

10:19–25 708

11:16 193

11:26–27 193

11:35–38 879

12:2 424, 508, 545, 855

13:1–6 193

13:2 853

13:20 424, 855

13:20–21 508, 708, 729

James

2:7 410

5:7–9 410

5:19–20 840, 879

1 Peter

1:1–5 708

1:3–4 424, 542, 876

1:3–5 458, 472, 531, 729, 853

1:3–6 540

1:3–7 879

1:3–9 536, 543, 881, 919

1:6–7 532

1:8 919

1:8–9 853, 876

1:9 532

1:21 424, 457, 471, 486, 508

2:21 508

2:24 487

3:14–22 515

3:18 286, 424, 457, 471, 487, 498

3:18–22 374

3:22 854

4:1 508

4:13–17 544

4:16 410

5:12 387, 404, 458

5:13 458

2 Peter

1:11 410

1:12–14 545

1:13–14 879

1:13–15 524, 545

1:14 410, 872

1:16–18 508, 768

2:9 410

3:2 544

3:10 410

3:18 410

1 John

1:1–3 200, 768

1:1–4 508

1:3 410

1:7 853

2:1 410

2:24 410

3:1–3 536

3:2 410

3:2–3 876

3:24 410

4:1–3 475

4:2 508

4:14 508

5:12–13 410

5:20 410, 475

2 John

3 410

9 410

3 John

5–8 853

7 410

10 853

Jude

1 410

22 840

22a 879

Revelation

1:4–18 708

1:7 413

1:9–20 765

1:10 707, 714, 720

1:13 48

1:14–16 765

1:17–18 199, 411, 738

1:18 424, 720

2–3 851

2:8 424

5 413

5:1–14 729

5:5–14 708

5:6a 413, 424

5:9 413

5:12 413

7:14 413

7:17 413

Table of Contents

- Ancient Sources Abbreviation List

- Introduction: The Task Ahead

- Part 1: The Nature of Historical Research

- 1: Philosophy of History

- 2: Historiography: The Tools and Rules of the Discipline

- 3: Historical Postmodernism
- 4: The Minimal Historical Facts about Jesus
- 5: Listing the Minimal Historical Facts

- Part 2: Jesus: The Preliminaries

- 6: The Existence of Jesus
- 7: A Definition of Miracle
- 8: Jesus the Healer

- Part 3: The Minimal Historical Facts

- 9: Minimal Fact 1: Jesus’s Death

- Excursus 1: Jesus’s Death and Contemporary Scholarship

- 10: Minimal Fact 2: The Disciples’ Experiences

- 11: Minimal Fact 3: The Earliest Proclamation of the Gospel

- Excursus 2: The Early Creedal Traditions

- 12: Minimal Fact 4: The Disciples’ Transformations

- 13: Minimal Fact 5: The Conversion of James

- 14: Minimal Fact 6: The Conversion of Paul

- Part 4: The Other Six Known Historical Facts

- 15: The Empty Tomb
- 16: Jesus’s Burial
- 17: The Last Four Known Facts

- Part 5: The Gospel Resurrection Data

- 18: The Gospels and Resurrection Testimony
- 19: The Gospel of Mark
- 20: The Gospel of Matthew
- 21: The Gospel of Luke
- 22: The Gospel of John
- 23: Acts 1:1–11

- 24: Noncanonical Christian Authors (AD 95–160)

- Conclusion: From the Disciples’ Experiences to REAL Appearances

- Evidential Near-Death Experiences

- Outlined Data in Favor of the Minimal Facts

- Summary Outline of the Second Six Known/Accepted Non-Minimal Facts Data

- Author Index
- Subject Index
- Scripture Index