For Further Reading
13
Tracing Jesus’ Resurrection to Its Earliest Eyewitness Accounts
Gary R. Habermas
Early Christians claimed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to many. How close were these accounts to the events in question? Scholars point out that the earliest New Testament writings began to appear about twenty years after Jesus’ death. My purpose here will be to argue that two epistles unanimously recognized as Paul’s, 1 Corinthians and Galatians, provide the basis for showing that the original resurrection proclamation was exceptionally early and linked to the initial eyewitnesses themselves. This indicates that the resurrection appearances are securely grounded in the historical tradition.
A Brief Word About the Minimal Historical Facts
Most evangelical scholars begin their treatment of Jesus’ resurrection by arguing for the general historical reliability of the four Gospels. While I think these texts provide much helpful information that contributes to the construction of such a case,[1] that will not be my approach here. Rather than attempting to employ these sources as a whole, in this essay I will utilize only those historical data that critical scholars think can be established according to more skeptical standards. Though I cannot provide the basis for these historical facts here, I have done so elsewhere.[2]
This method is often misunderstood. Some object that the Bible cannot be used as a source. However, I am using only data that critical scholars allow, and this acknowledgment by them comes for a reason: there is a strong basis which grounds this material.
In any study that employs the principles of historiography, whether ancient or modern, arguably the two major requirements are to secure testimony that is both eyewitness and as close as possible to the events in question. It is especially crucial to have enough information to address any major alternative scenarios. To have both eyewitness and early testimony is fairly uncommon in the ancient world, but where they are available, especially together, they usually play a crucial role. This was recognized in ancient times as well.[3]
The Crucifixion of Jesus—Ground Zero
The point of departure for our timeline is Jesus’ death by crucifixion, generally dated at either A.D. 30 or 33. The precise time will not be debated here; Raymond Brown thinks that it is almost impossible to choose between them, but neither date poses a problem.[4] John Dominic Crossan asserts that “Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[5] The remainder of the events on which we will concentrate our efforts occur over the next twenty-five years.
Two to Three Decades After the Cross: The “Authentic” Pauline Epistles
The majority of scholars today regard Paul’s epistles as the starting point when discussing early Christianity. Of the thirteen books that bear this apostle’s name, even critics accept at least six as authentic: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians. Even skeptical scholars agree that these books are written by Paul and date in the decade between A.D. 50 and 60.[6]
Critical scholars prefer these “authentic” Pauline epistles because we can be certain of the author and dates of these writings. While Paul mentions fewer details of Jesus’ earlier life in these works, he provides important specifics regarding the gospel message of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection appearances, and from a much earlier time than the Gospels.
The key text in this regard is certainly 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. In the previous two verses, Paul refers to his earlier preaching to the Corinthians. This epistle was written in approximately A.D. 54-55, whereas Paul’s original preaching in the city would have been dated at least a couple of years earlier, perhaps as early as 50, as Koester acknowledges.[7] So Paul wrote concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection appearances in this crucial text just twenty-five years after the crucifixion of Jesus, while having preached the same message to the Corinthian church several years earlier, or about twenty years after the events.
This last date is only half the time span from Jesus to the Gospel of Mark, and less than one-third the distance between Jesus and the Gospel of John. But Paul’s account also provides other crucial reasons to prefer it above the Gospels. In a straightforward remark that is exceptionally well-recognized by critical scholars, Paul explains that he received the material in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 from another source: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3). This comment offers an entirely different perspective on the reliability of Paul’s information. Could this possibly provide an insight into the nature of the earliest apostolic teaching between the years of A.D. 30 and 50, prior to the writing of the first New Testament book? Even the book of Acts is regularly dated between A.D. 65 and 85, or from thirty-five to fifty-five years after the crucifixion.[8] Both this date and the writings of the Gospels come from a very respectable time frame for ancient reports. But what if we had material from even prior to the early Pauline epistles?
Besides 1 Corinthians 15:3, several other New Testament texts also mention the passing on of early tradition.[9] This follows the well-known Jewish practice of insuring doctrinal and pastoral continuity by reproducing faithful teaching. Even without the presence of explicit statements that a tradition is being passed on, critical scholars are widely in agreement with regard to a number of these ancient texts. The presence of such a tradition is often indicated by the sentence structure, diction, textual parallelism, stylized wording and so on. Sometimes these texts are apparent because of the syntax breaks between the citation and the larger text. On still other occasions, texts contain brief theological snippets that are best explained as existing in this form for purposes of memorization. Another example is what is generally agreed to be a Christological hymn in Philippians 2:6-11.
One benefit of these early traditions (also called “creeds” or “confessions”) is that they reproduce teachings that are earlier than the book or writing in which they appear. Therefore, if this material is known to be reliable, especially if it appears to be apostolic in nature, then it most likely exhibits trustworthy comments that are also early, sometimes exceptionally so.[10]
In order to see if the material in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is even earlier and more authoritative, we must determine the most likely scenario for Paul’s reception of this tradition. The apostle claims in a forthright manner that he passed this information on just as he received it. Do we have any information regarding when Paul may have received this account? Who most likely gave it to him? Since it concerns the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus, the very center of early Christianity, it would be crucially important if we were to have some indication of Paul’s source.
A Half Decade After the Cross: Paul’s First Trip to Jerusalem
Strangely enough, the next stage in the process was discovered not by biblical conservatives, but by critical scholars. Further, there is near unanimity among those who address these issues. Paul asserts more than once that he received traditions from others and passed them on to his hearers. Does he provide any indications of where and when he obtained these data?
From everything we know, Paul was a careful scholar. He had been trained well in the Old Testament tradition, referring to himself as an individual who was exceptionally zealous for the law, as a Pharisee and “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:4-6). He had advanced beyond others of his own age and distinguished himself by supporting without question the tradition of Judaism. As such, he violently persecuted early Christians (Gal 1:13-14). Then he testified that he met the risen Jesus, accounting for the total transformation of his life (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8-10; Gal 1:15-16).
Paul attests that immediately after his conversion, he did not consult with anyone. Since he had seen the risen Jesus, and had been instructed by him to preach to the Gentiles, he did not think it was necessary to confirm this with others. Jesus’ authority was greater than that of anyone else. However, three years later he did visit Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with Peter and James the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:15-18).
What happened during this incredible meeting involving these three great Christian leaders? It must have been eventful, to say the least. In the now famous words of Cambridge University New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd, “We may presume that they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[11]
So what did they discuss? It might be said that the first rule of literary criticism is to interpret a text in its context. When we apply that rule here, the context both immediately before and after Paul’s statement concerns the nature of the gospel message. Therefore, critical scholars conclude that clearly this subject formed the center of this historic meeting. Besides, what else would Paul and the other two apostles more likely discuss other than the very center of their faith? For these two reasons, it is widely concluded that the gospel content constituted the focus of their conversation.
Further, the majority of critical scholars who answer the question think that Paul received the early tradition recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 during this visit to Jerusalem, and that he received it from Peter and James, who, incidentally, are the only other individuals besides Paul whose names appear in the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Based on the usual date for Paul’s conversion of between one and three years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul’s reception of this material in Jerusalem would be dated three years later, or from approximately A.D. 34 to 36. On many occasions, I have documented this critical scholarly conclusion as to when and from whom Paul received this material.[12] Richard Bauckham has also recently noted the scholarly consensus on this point.[13]
Besides the subject matter itself and the three individual names in the list of appearances, another hint regarding this process is found in Galatians 1:18. When speaking of his time with Peter and James, Paul used the Greek term historēsai (taken from the term histor), which is often defined as gaining knowledge by personal inquiry or investigation.[14] So Paul apparently meant for the reader to understand that he was using this quality time with the other two apostles in order to probe their understanding of the gospel message. But even without him telling us this, it makes the most sense of his taking a trip to Jerusalem to speak with the major apostles there. Moreover, the topic was very important to Paul, for he paused afterward to tell his reader: “I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie” (Gal 1:20).
It is absolutely crucial that we keep in mind here the vital difference between the formal tradition that Paul passed along to others, which as far as we know was written down for the first time in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, and the particular content that this tradition summarizes. Virtually nothing depends on Paul having received this exact tradition during precisely this meeting in Jerusalem, even though that is when critical scholars tend to place it. By far the more important matter concerns Paul’s knowledge of the gospel content as preached by Peter and James the brother of Jesus, which comprises the creed. Thus, all we really need to know here is that Paul investigated the gospel particulars with them, and this seems well-assured.
In fact, critical scholars are so sure about this last conclusion that Dodd concluded, “The date, therefore, at which Paul received the fundamentals of the Gospel cannot well be later than some seven years after the death of Jesus Christ. It may be earlier.” Therefore, “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.” And lest some say that Paul confused this message, Dodd concludes, “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.”[15]
But we do not have to take Dodd’s word for this; dozens of contemporary critical scholars, including skeptics, espouse the general scenario outlined here.[16] Therefore, the majority of critical scholars who address the issue think that Paul received his traditional material on the death and resurrection of Jesus from Peter and James the brother of Jesus while he was in Jerusalem, approximately a half dozen years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Further, even if one questions the precise time and place of Paul’s actual reception of this creedal material, it is exceptionally difficult to avoid the conclusion that these three apostles at least ascertained the nature of the gospel content at that time.
Less Than Two Decades After the Cross: Paul’s Later Trip to Jerusalem
Here we must digress a bit in our timeline, before we keep moving backward toward Jesus’ death. But this occasion was better left until after the previous discussion. Immediately after describing his initial trip to Jerusalem, Paul relates that he visited the city again, fourteen years later (Gal 2:1). During what year did this second meeting occur? Paul dates it from his previous discussion in Galatians 1, causing scholars to wonder whether Paul meant the time of his conversion, or from his first trip to Jerusalem. Also, scholarly opinion varies as to whether the meeting in Galatians 2:1-10 is the same as the account in Acts 15:1-31. Regardless, the difference is slight. Koester prefers a date of A.D. 48.[17]
Once again, Paul’s topic is clearly that of the gospel. In one of the most incredible comments in the New Testament, Paul attested that he specifically journeyed to Jerusalem to visit the leading apostles in order to set before them the gospel message that he had been preaching “for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” (Gal 2:1-2). What an incredible admission! Here we have the “apostle to the Gentiles” acknowledging that he submitted himself to the apostolic authorities in Jerusalem in order to ascertain if the gospel message he was preaching was on target. Had he been mistaken, there could have been dire circumstances for the Gentile members of the early church; hence Paul’s hesitation.
Besides Peter and James the brother of Jesus, the apostle John was also present (Gal 2:9). Along with Paul, it is difficult to miss the stellar composition of this group. One could hardly imagine a single authority in the early church who was more influential than these four. We are told that Paul’s companions Barnabas and Titus were also present (Gal 2:1). It is to this group that Paul presented his gospel message, for their inspection. The verdict was that the other three apostolic leaders “added nothing to my message” (Gal 2:6). Further, they extended fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, recognizing their mission to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9). The other apostles did exhort them to also take care of the poor, which Paul states he was eager to do anyway (Gal 2:10).[18]
Paul could not have hoped for a better verdict! We assume that he, Peter and James were all on the same page during Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem. But here he specifically asked for a judgment regarding the central message that he preached to the Gentiles and found that there was no conflict between his gospel teaching and that of the other apostles. Especially when we consider that these were the most influential leaders in the early church, the value of such a positive verdict could hardly be overemphasized. They were all united regarding the most sacred proclamation in early Christianity.
Again we are reminded of Dodd’s statement that Paul and the other early apostles all agreed when it came to the gospel message.[19] Paul made it clear that early gospel preaching was concerned with the person of Christ, his death, burial, resurrection and appearances (1 Cor 15:3-4). Paul is clear about this in other places as well, where he also quotes other very early creedal traditions (such as Rom 1:3-4; 10:9). Similarly, the book of Acts also defines the early apostolic preaching of the gospel as referring to the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus.[20] Many critical scholars also consider a number of these texts in Acts to be other early traditions that predate the book itself. Dodd was one of the leading specialists here, and he found the same gospel specifics in these Acts texts as in the writings of Paul.[21]
After Paul cites the early creedal text in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, he mentions the other apostles and affirms that they were preaching the same message of Jesus’ resurrection appearances that he was (1 Cor 15:11; cf. 15:12-15). So his readers could get the same information from either him or them—they were in agreement. This is the reverse of Galatians 2:1-10. There, the three chief apostles affirmed Paul’s gospel message. In Corinthians, Paul asserts that they were all teaching the same central message of the resurrected Christ that he preached.[22]
For ancient texts, perhaps never do we see this sort of cross-checking by the major authorities, all at such an early date. Howard Clark Kee amazingly asserts that this material is so strong that “it 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.”[23] We conclude that Paul, Peter, John and James the brother of Jesus were the right people, at the right place, at the right time, all proclaiming the same resurrection message!
Immediately After the Cross: Back to the Date of the Actual Events
After our brief backtracking in order to place Paul’s later trip to Jerusalem in its proper perspective, we are now ready to move to the final scene on our timeline. Here we want to ask about those who had knowledge of these historical events prior to Paul’s own reception of the data, including the creedal formulation. After all, Paul’s obtaining the knowledge of these events before his own appearance of the risen Jesus was not an end in itself. We must backtrack to the original occurrences themselves.
Working backward before Paul, then, these accounts had already been cast into succinct oral summaries for use in teaching, especially because the majority of hearers were apparently illiterate. Prior to that are the original accounts of these occurrences by those who actually participated in them. As noted, we know that the entire process took place very quickly, based on the precise data we have regarding the actual events, the teaching about them and the formulation into a succinct creedal statement. Then it was recorded just a relatively short time later. Critical scholars readily concede that the early Christians believed that certain events had taken place with regard to the risen Jesus.
Therefore, prior to Paul’s trip to Jerusalem and his discussion with Peter and James regarding the gospel data (which was perhaps also the time when he received the original creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15), Paul was obviously not the first one to have heard their report about the appearances. At least the other two apostles, presumably along with others, had to know the information before Paul did. Now we are getting close to the beginning, since both Peter and James are listed among those who saw the risen Jesus, as is especially clear in 1 Corinthians 15:4, 7. The only more foundational data are the actual events themselves.
How should we date each of these strands? We have seen that Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem is usually placed at A.D. 34 to 36, and Paul’s conversion at three years before that, or about A.D. 31 to 33. Since Paul believed that he saw an appearance of the recently dead and now risen Jesus, the crucifixion would have occurred earlier still, but not very long beforehand. If any of the early confessions embedded in the Acts sermons[24] also represent reliable reconstructions of the earliest teaching, as granted by most critical scholars, then we have additional reasons for holding that the resurrection was preached from the very beginning, immediately after Jesus’ death.
Do critical scholars agree on the date of this pre-Pauline creed? Even radical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann think that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion . . . not later than three years after the death of Jesus.”[25] Similarly, Michael Goulder contends that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection appearances “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”[26]
An increasing number of exceptionally influential scholars have very recently concluded that at least the teaching of the resurrection, and perhaps even the specific formulation of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dates to A.D. 30! In other words, there never was a time when the message of Jesus’ resurrection was not an integral part of the earliest apostolic proclamation.[27] No less a scholar than James D. G. Dunn even states regarding this crucial text: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”[28]
Therefore, Paul received creedal material in Jerusalem just five years or so after Jesus’ crucifixion that was actually formulated earlier, perhaps dating even all the way back to very shortly after the death of Jesus. But regardless of where we date this creedal tradition itself, the underlying content of the gospel message regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ goes back to the very beginning. In other words, it was the central message of the early apostolic church from its inception.
A Common Objection
At present, perhaps the most frequently heard charge, especially from the ranks of the New Atheist devotees, is that Christianity copied its message from other earlier ancient religions. For instance, Christopher Hitchens wonders about some of the supernatural events that reportedly surrounded Jesus’ birth, when similar things were said to have happened to other religious personages like Buddha and Krishna.[29] These similarities are also mentioned or hinted at regularly with regard to the resurrection of Jesus.[30]
The real oddity about this charge is the very real disconnect between popular skeptical critiques and treatments by equally skeptical specialists in the relevant fields. Seemingly a large percentage of the former adopt these complaints about parallel religions as if they are simply accepted by everyone except Christians, who apparently have their heads stuck in the sand. However, while the scholarly skeptics may occasionally note this or that minor similarity, they very rarely charge that early Christianity derived its resurrection teachings from prior religions. Why this huge disconnect between skeptical popularists and their scholarly counterparts? Could it be that the historical data simply do not support such commonly repeated charges?
Even if we do not stray very far from the material in this essay alone, this popular thesis is substantially challenged at every juncture. First, the fashionable charge that stories of crucified and risen saviors were rampant in the ancient world prior to Christianity has been dismissed by critical scholars, especially during the last few decades. For starters, the pagan stories were generally of persons who never lived and involved religious messages that actually contradicted major Christian teachings, and these ancient accounts had very little influence in ancient Palestine. Much more significantly, the central historical points of contact are simply missing: The reports of Buddha and Krishna come hundreds of years afterward. No other major religious founders in ancient times were ever crucified. Further, it cannot be demonstrated that there is even a single pagan resurrection account prior to Jesus, whether mythological or historical.[31] This is certainly significant in any attempt to press these so-called parallels.
Second, and in utter contrast, we have outlined the scholarly unanimity regarding especially 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, along with early sermon summaries in Acts, that date the incredibly early proclamation of the resurrection message to about A.D. 30. It shows that this message was linked directly to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, with no sign of legendary origin.
Third and even more crucially, with respect to Jesus’ resurrection skeptical scholars are persuaded almost unanimously that the appearance reports came from the eyewitnesses themselves, based on their own original experiences, not ancient myths and legends. In other words, the resurrection belief was derived from real experiences rather than amorphous rumors from elsewhere.
Further, this scenario was confirmed during Paul’s visits to Jerusalem to discuss the nature of the gospel message with the key apostles (Gal 1:18-20; 2:1-10). Paul knew what the other apostles were teaching regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus and commended their message (1 Cor 15:11-15). This tight framework indicates that the original proclamation was based from start to finish on actual historical occurrences.
Many additional problems beset the legendary thesis as well. These experiences transformed the disciples so that they were willing to die specifically for their gospel teaching. This indicates that they utterly believed the truth of this resurrection message. Paul’s own appearance and conversion from church persecutor are left unexplained by ancient myths, as is Jesus’ brother James’ conversion from skepticism to belief in the risen Christ (although we have not discussed this here). Lastly, the empty tomb is heavily evidenced[32] but is unexplained by this alternative thesis.
Although additional critiques could be mentioned,[33] this indicates why the vast majority of scholars reject legends as the origin of the early resurrection proclamations, which arose from actual, eyewitness experiences. As Wolfhart Pannenberg asserts: “Under such circumstances it is an idle venture to make parallels in the history of religions responsible for the emergence of the primitive Christian message about Jesus’ resurrection.”[34]
Conclusion: Completing the Argument
Contemporary critical scholars agree that, besides Paul’s own appearance, he obtained his early message of the gospel from others before him. He probably received at least the content of the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 from Peter and James when he visited Jerusalem in the very first years after Jesus died on the cross. For these apostles, in turn, the resurrection appearances were of course earlier still.
It is this argument, more than any other, that has convinced the bulk of critical scholars today that Jesus’ resurrection was proclaimed in the earliest church. Likewise, scholars think that the cause of this early message was the experiences of Jesus’ earliest disciples, who were utterly convinced that they had seen appearances of their risen Lord.[35] This message did not occur at some later date, and was definitely not concocted or copied from the teachings of others. As Bauckham emphasizes clearly, “There can be no doubt that . . . Paul is citing the eyewitness testimony of those who were recipients of resurrection appearances.”[36]
This explains the incredible value of Paul’s report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. It definitely addresses the two most crucial historiographical issues by linking the reports of the original eyewitnesses which were demonstrably taken from the very earliest period. This argument has stunned a generation of critical scholars, causing them to realize that Jesus’ resurrection appearances, unlike later parallels which may have borrowed from Christianity, are firmly grounded in the historical tradition.
For Further Reading
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
Craig, William Lane. The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid. London: Lutterworth, 1949.
Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1996.
———. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.