Introduction: The Task Ahead
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.