10: Minimal Fact 2: The Disciples’ Experiences

10: Minimal Fact 2: The Disciples’ Experiences

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.

↑ Back to top